S/PV.1345 Security Council

Letters dated 30 May 1967 have been received from the representatives of Iraq /S/79/#] and Morocco [S/791.5/ requesting that they be invited to participate in the Council’s discussion. Accordingly, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of Iraq and Morocco to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber in order to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote. At the invitation of the President, Mr. A. Pacizachi (Iraq) and Mr. A. T. Benhima (Morocco) took the places resened for them.

The Council will now continue its discussion of the item on its agenda. Members of the Council will have noted that a United States draft resolution has been distributed this afternoon in document S/7916.* 4. The first speaker on my list is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq. I now invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

I am grateful to the Council for giving me this opportunity to make a statement in the present debate. I have been instructed by the Government of the Republic of Iraq to appear before this important body to explain the position that my country takes in respect of the present situation in the Near East. 6. The grave crisis endangering peace and security in our area has arisen because of Israel’s threat to start a war if its demands concerning navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba are not met. While the Government of the United Arab Republic has informed the Secretary-General that it “would not initiate offensive action against Israel” [S/7906, para. 91,’ no such assurance-I repeat, no such assurance-has been given by the Israel Government; on the contrary, responsible Israel officials such as the Prime * Subsequently replaced by document S/7916/Rev.l in English only. 1 Ofjcicial Records of the Security Council, Twenty-second Year, L%plemerzt forApril, May andJune 1967. NOTE @nbols of UnitedNations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures, jkvtion of ntch a symbol in&&es a reference to a United Nations document. Documents of the Security Council (symbol S/. . ,) are normally published in quarterly Jupp/etrterlts of the Ofjcial Records Of the Securi~ Council. The date of the document indicates the supplement in which it appears or in which information about it is @en. The resolutions of the Security Council, numbered in accordance with a system adopted in 1964, are published in Yearly volumes of Resolutions and Decisions of the sccuri/y Council, The new system, which has been applied retroactively to resolutions adopted before 1 January 1965, became fully operative on that date. Held in New York on Wednesday, 31 May 1967, at 3 p.m, President: Mr. LIU Chieh (China). Present; Tlie representatives of the following States: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, India, Japan, Mali, Nigeria, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America. Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/l 345) 1. Adoption of the agenda. 2. Letter dated 23 May 1967 from the Permanent Representatives of Canada and Denmark addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/7902). 3. Complaint of the representative of the United Arab Republic in a letter to the President of the Security Council dated 27 May 1967 entitled: “Israel aggressive policy, its repeated aggression threatening peace and security in the Middle East and endangering international peace and security” (S/7907). 4. Letter dated 29 May 1967 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/7910). Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. Letter dated 23 May 1967 from the Permanent Representatives of Canada and Denmark addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/7902) Complaint of the representative of the United Arab Republic in a letter to the President of the Security Council dated 27 May 1967 entitled: “Israel aggressive policy, its repeated aggression threatening peace and security in the Middle East and endangering international peace and security” (S/7907) j Letter dated 29 May 1967 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland addressed to the President of the Security Councif (S/791 0)

In accordance with the decisions previously taken by the Council, and with the consent of the Council, I now invite the representatives of Israel, the United Arab Republic, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. At the imitation of the President, Mr. G. Rafael (Israel), Mr. M. A. El Kony (United Arab Republic), Mr. M. If. El- Farra (Jordan), Mr. G. J. Tomeh (Syria) and Mr. G. Hakim (Lebanon) took the places reserved for them.

Letters dated 30 May 1967 have been received from the representatives of Iraq [S/7914/ and Morocco (S/791.5] requesting that they be invited to participate in the Council’s discussion. Accordingly, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of Iraq and Morocco to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber in order to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote. At the invitation of the President, Mr. A. Pachachi (Iraq) and Mr. A. T. Benhima (Morocco) took the places reserved for them.

The Council will now continue its discussion of the item on its agenda. Members of the Council will have noted that a United States draft resolution has been distributed this afternoon in document S/7916.” 4. The first speaker on my list is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq. I now invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

I am grateful to the Council for giving me this opportunity to make a statement in the present debate, I have been instructed by the Government of the Republic of Iraq to appear before this important body to explain the position that my country takes in respect of the present situation in the Near East. 6. The grave crisis endangering peace and security in our area has arisen because of Israel’s threat to start a war if its demands concerning navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba are not met. While the Government of the United Arab Republic has informed the Secretary-General that it “would not initiate offensive action against Israel” [S/7906, para. 9/, 1 no such assurance-I repeat, no such assurance-has been given by the Israel Government; 011 the contrary, responsible Israel officials such as the Prime * Subsequently replaced by document S/7916/Rev.l in English only. 7. This is the situation in all its stark simplicity: one side solemnly declaring tllat it will use force only if attacked, and the other side giving notice to the world that it will employ military means in order to acquire certain rights in another country’s territory on the basis of arguments of doubtful validity. Never before has such a challenge been hurled at this Organization and the international community. It is therefore incumbent upon this Council, if it wishes to discharge its responsibilities, to determine first of all the real causes of the crisis and where the real threats to peace come from. 8. Israel is asking the Council to be party to an attempt to impose upon the United Arab Republic a solution that flouts that country’s sovereign rights as an independent State and that would endanger its national security. In his brilliant analysis two days ago, my friend Mr. El Kony of the United Arab Republic fully covered the legal aspects of the problem, and I would like to say now that my Governement fully endorses the point of view he expressed regarding the sovereign right of the United Arab Republic to control navigation through its territorial waters whenever it feels such control is necessary for its own national security. Prior to 1956 such control was not challenged by the users of the gulf. The United Arab Republic has now restored the status quo ante, that is, the situation as it existed before the Israel aggression against Egypt in 1956. It is evident that no rights or privileges derived by the aggressor from his aggression can have any legal or moral validity. Yet that is exactly what certain Powers are calling on the Council to state. Instead of helping to remove the last traces of that odious adventure, they wish to ensure that Israel continues to enjoy the fruits of its aggression. 9. The questions arising from the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force, including the problem of navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba, are only symptoms of a deeper conflict, a conflict which is commonly called “The Pales tine question”. We fully agree with the statement of the Secretary-General in his latest report that “the underlying basis for this and other crisis situations in the Near East is the continuing Arab-Israel conflict which has been present all along” [ibid., qara. 21. 10. May I take this opportunity to express, on behalf of my Government, our appreciation and support for the decision of the Secretary-General to comply promptly with the request of the United Arab Republic Government to withdraw the United Nations Emergency Force. In paragraphs 2 to 7 of his latest report, the Secretary-General makes what we believe to be an unanswerable case for the withdrawal. 11. Regarding the question of Palestine, I would say that rarely has a problem evoked such deep emotions or had such enduring significance. This is because there are few problems which raise as many fundamental questions. All the great issues of our time are interwoven in the fabric of 13. If the Arab States today were to declare that the non-implementation of these resolutions was a cams be& would they not be on far more solid ground than Israel, which claims a right which it does not possess under international law and on which the United Nations has taken no position, formally or otherwise? Are we not entitled to conclude, therefore, that according to those who now vigorously uphold Israel’s illegal demand for free and unfettered passage in the Gulf of Aqaba, the fait accompli is the only principle to guide United Nations actions? One wonders if that is why Israel, this persistent and avid practitioner of the fait accompli, is permitted to defy with impunity so many resolutions of the United Nations. 14. The Armistice Agreements themselves have been violated repeatedly by Israel. The representative of the United Arab Republic has given a few examples of such violations, namely, the occupation of the demilitarized zones and the deliberate disruption of the functioning of the armistice machinery. We endorse the Secretary-General’s proposal to reactivate this machinery, provided it is accompanied by the strict implementation of the Armistice Agreements and the full restoration of the conditions which prevailed at the time of the signing of these Agreements. 15. It follows from that brief account of some of Israel’s more notorious activities that it would be illogical, and indeed unreasonable, to isolate and give priority to the secondary question of navigation in. the Gulf of Aqaba, while ignoring the other, far more weighty and urgeat problems with which the United Nations and the Security Council have been concerned for years. The fact that the Israelis threaten to start a war on the question of navigation does not detract from the importance of the other questions; nor does it give the question of access to the Gulf of Aqaba any special importance, unless the Coud is prepared to give in whenever a Member State, irresponsibly and for reasons of prestige, decides to make a particular question a casus belli. 16. There are two ways of dealing with the Palestirle question. First, there are those who believe that this question should be examined objectively on its own merits, 17. In this present crisis, brought about by Israel, the Arab States have repeatedly stated that they will not initiate military operations or take the first step on the road to war. But if Israel uses force, then the conflict will not be localized, but will spread to all the other theatres, and it will not end until Israel aggression has been totally defeated and the Israel menace to the peace and security of the area removed. Those who think that the issue will be settled by a quick, lightning thrust are indulging in dangerous delusions. 22. Mr. President, I ask for your indulgence, since we have the floor and since the United States draft resolution is now before us, to say that we do not believe that the draft resolution fully conforms with the intent of the report of the Secretary-General. But, naturally, before giving our final view on this text, we shall await the explanations of the representative of the United States as to what is intended by the draft resolution, as to what conditions it intends to establish.

Last Wednesday, I had the opportunity to express /1342nd meeting] the very grave concern of my Government regarding the situation in the Middle East. Our concern has grown more acute and has deepened, particularly since we have received the Secretary-General’s second report of 26 May 1967 [S/7906/, in which, having just returned from visiting Cairo, he reiterated his assessment of the general situation in the area, already described in his first report of 19 May as being “more disturbing, indeed . . . more menacing, than at any time since the fall of 1956” [S/7896, para, 191. 18. My friend and colleague, the Foreign Minister of Lebanon, yesterday gave the Council [1344th meeting] an eloquent and moving account of the feelings of our people and their unshakable determination to put an end to twenty years of humiliation at the hands of the aggressor in our midst. We shall defend ourselves whatever the cost and however long and difficult the struggle may be. We are prepared to use every tool at our disposal. The conflict will be total and uncompromising. 19. The day before I left Baghdad my Government decided to deny our oil resources to any State which takes part in or supports the Israel aggression against the Arab States. We have invited all the other Arab oil-producing and exporting countries to meet with us to co-ordinate our positions. This must prove that our people are prepared to bear any hardship and accept any sacrifice. But there will be no retreat. Make no mistake about that; make no miscalculations. 24. The deeper our concern, however, the stronger becomes our conviction that it is incumbent upon the Security Council to face squarely the problem in ail its aspects and to discharge its responsibilities promptly and effectively. My delegation notes that the second report of the Secretary-General deals with a considerable number of substantial matters of great importance affecting the maintehance of international peace and security in the Near East, at present and in the future. In the view of my delegation, the Secretary-General’s assessment of the situation, and the various substantive r&ters referred to by him in his report, provide a very good basis for the Council to consider the present situation in the Near East, without unnecessary acrimonious interventions. 20. For fifty years we witnessed the Zionist peril steadily advancing. From a mere promise given by a colonial Power in time of war, Israel was able to carve for itself a precious part of our homeland, continually threatening and trying to intimidate our people with murderous attacks across the armistice lines, which as the Foreign Minister of Lebanon said, the Arab countries have not once crossed since 1949 but which the Israelis have crossed with their armies twelve times. And now they are not hesitating to threaten to unleash a war on us, and maybe on the world, in order to keep their ill-gotten gains. 25. The Secretary-General’s reiterated assessment of the situation strengthens the view of my delegation that the foremost and most important consideration is for all Governments concerned to exercise maximum restraint, scrupulously avoiding any action of any kind which might lead to further deterioration of the present grave situation. Because this is our strongly held view, we support, with other delegations, the Secretary-General when, in his report, he urges all parties concerned “to exercise special 21. The problem before the Council is to prevent Israel, which alone is threatening war, from carrying out its threat. But this should not be done by giving in to its demands. 27. The relaxation of present tensions should provide, as the Secretary-General put it, a “breathing spell”. Such a “breathing spell” would offer, first of all, a better opportunity for the parties concerned to seek, as they are clearly obliged to do under Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, a solution of their disputes by negotiation or other peaceful means of their own choice. 28. We note in this connexion that the Secretary-General has mentioned, in his discussions with officials of the United Arab Republic and Israel, possible steps which could be taken by mutual consent, The Secretary-General also expressed, in paragraph.s 10 and 12 of his second report, his particular concern over the dangerous consequences which could ensue from restricting innocent passage of ships in the Strait of Tiran. I have no intention at this juncture of discussing the legal aspect of this question. My delegation, however, cannot help sharing the Secretary-General’s deep concern in this regard, We therefore strongly urge the parties concerned to refy on peaceful means, as specified in the Charter, for a solution of this problem. 29. To conclude my remarks, my delegation is fully aware of the innumerable difficulties and complexities involved in seeking a peaceful solution of the prolonged conflict between the Arab States and Israel. We do not foresee that such a solution will come easily or quickly, but the stakes of peace or war in the Near East are altogether too high to permit even the slightest degree of cynicism, defeatism or despair. The conflicting parties have the most solemn obligation to make every effort to find peaceful solutions of their basic conflict acceptable to all of them. 30. Meanwhile, almost two weeks have passed since the present tense situation in the Near East was brought to our attention. Now is the time for the United Nations as a whole, and particularly the Security Council, in close co-operation with the Secretary-General, to seek the positive, specific and objective measures that may be necessary to bring that basic conflict to a just and peaceful end.

I have asked to speak briefly in order to submit a draft resolution for the consideration of the Council. Tllis draft resolution is simple and reads as follows: 1 “The Security Council, “Having considered the report of the Secretary-General in document S/7906, “Having heard the statements of the parties, “1. Calls 012 all the parties concerned as a first step to comply with the Secretary-General’s appeal, “2. Elzcozlyuges the immediate pursuit of international diplomacy in the interests of pacifying the situation and seeking reasonable, peaceful and just solutions, “3, Decides to keep this issue under urgent and continuous review so that the Council may determine what further steps it might take in the exercise of its responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and.security.“(S/7916/~ev.l./ 32. It is obvious that this is an interim draft resolution. It simply endorses the Secretary-General’s appeal for a breath. ing spell in order, in his words, to “allow tension to subside from its present explosive level” /S/7906, para. 14/ and to gain time in which “to seek, and eventually to find, reasonable, peaceful and just solutions” [ibid., para, 19J* To this end the draft resolution urges all parties to exercise the restraint necessary to allow both the Council and international diplomacy to pursue the further steps required to defuse the situation and move towards peace. 33. In offering the draft resolution at this time, my delegation is conscious of the fact that it is now one week since the Council first met in,the present crisis. Our meeting today is the fourth in this series of meetings, during which all of us-the members of the Council and the parties to the dispute-have had the opportunity to state our respective positions. Five days ago the Secretary-General returned from his arduous mission to Cairo. Four days ago hc submitted his report to the Council, in which he said that his major concern at this critical juncture was to “gain time in order to lay the basis for a detente” [ibid., para. 121, 34. The events since then have certainly underscored the urgency which the Secretary-General expressed to us last Friday in his report. To be sure, in my statement to the Council on Monday (1343rd meeting], I was able to refer to a brief and welcome respite which had been obtained by diplomatic efforts in which my country actively part%* pated. Nevertheless I was obliged to emphasize that the crisis has not substantially eased, tension remains great, aad the time-span in which to avert a clash is short, Those remarks, regrettably, still hold true today. 35. The Security Council, in a world body of 122 Members, is a relatively small and compact body; it was so designed under the Charter. It is charged, in Article 24 of 36. TO that end the United States believes that the Council ought to take, step by step, the necessary decisions in this extremely grave and important matter, The draft resolution which we now submit reflects the first step which, in otlr view, the Council should take. The measures‘ which we propose in this interim resolution are designed, in the spirit of the Secretary-General’s report, to ensure a coaling-off period in the Near East without prejudice to the ultimate rights or claims of any party. This will afford the necessary time for more deliberate disposition of the underlying issues. 37. It is not our intention in offering this interim resolution to attempt in any way to evade or delay the exercise by the Council of its responsibility to seek solutions to the underlying causes of the present crisis. On the contrary, our aim is to gain time and to create a climate in which. such solutions can be sought under more favourable conditions. 38. Indeed, our draft resolution takes into account the fact that the Council has two types of responsibilities. In addition to its responsibility to avert an imminent clash, it has also the responsibility conferred by Chapter VI of the Charter, and described in the Secretary-General’s words: “to seek, and eventually to find, reasonable, peaceful and just solutions”/S/7906, para. 191. 39. And corresponding responsibilities lie also, under the Charter, on every Member State in the international community to support our common effort in the United Nations to achieve peace and security in the Near East. 40. There is one great issue in the balance here today: the issue of keeping the peace in the Near East, with all that that implies for world security. But we in this Council must also recognize that we face another issue as well: the issue of the potency and efficacy of the United Nations. 41. The twenty-one-year record of the Security Council contains numerous instances of historic decisions, decisions 49. We had filed a complaint with the United Nations by wliich we, the members, were able to “harmonize our machinery in the area, and the Mixed Armistice Commission found that the Israelis’ action constituted complete actions”, as the Charter says, sufficiently to save the world from the scourge of war. We have proved that we have the disregard by Israel of its obligations under the Armistice capacity to serve the purpose assigned to us by the Charter. Agreement. The Commission also determined that this hostile and warlike act was the most serious end flagrant The issue now is whether we have the courage, the resolution and the vision to exercise that capacity. violation of article III, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Jordan- Israel General Armistice Agreement. 42. It must be candidly acknowledged that we have many conflicting interests represented at this table, But we have one overriding common interest, which is peace. I suspect that a detached observer following these proceedings, as they are being followed all over the world, will be watching above all to see whether partisan concerns and narrow national interests will be subordinated to our common overriding interest in peace. 43. I earnestly commend this draft resolution to the attention of the Council, 46. We have time and time again reminded the Council of the determination on the part of the Israel authorities to create a situation convenient for their expansionist designs in the area. We have recorded events, serious incidents and acts of aggression committed against our area and people. However, in spite of the seriousness of the situation, no effective and deterrent remedy has been taken by the Council. 47. I need not dwell at length on a description of the attacks by Israel troops and regular armed forces against Jordan. We have described them earlier, either through formal complaints or in official documents presented to the United Nations. Let us, however, very briefly consider the behaviour of the Israel authorities after the decision taken on As Samu by the Council in which Israel was censured and in which the Council emphasized to Israel that military actions could not be tolerated and that if they were repeated the Security Council would have to consider further and more effective steps, as envisaged in the Charter-that is, jn Chapter VII-.to ensure against the repetition of such acts. 48. Only last month Israel forces, in spite of the decision of the Security Council, again crossed the armistice demarcation line illto Jordan, south of Hebron, an! Israel helicopters transporting Israel forces also crossed the armistice demarcation line and landed in Jordan. The intruding Israel forces, while inside Jordan, engaged in a serious clash with Jordanian civilians, causing the death of one Jordanian and the wounding and kidnapping of another who was later murdered inside Israel. 50. The Mixed Armistice Commission took a most serious view of the Israel authorities, who openly admitted the act of aggression, in utter disregard of their obligations. The Commission finally used what has become a routine formula and called on the Israel authorities in the strongest terms to desist from a most serious threat to peace and security. 5 1. This act committed last month was the Israel reaction to the Security Council decision on AS Samu of 25 November 1966 [resolution 228 (1966/l. 53. No words could better describe that flagrant provocation than the statement of Mr. Ysrael Galili, an Israel Cabinet member, which was reported in the Israel Jerusalem Post of 7 May 1967 as follows: “ ‘We’ “-meaning the Government of Israel-“ ‘shall judge the Independence Day parade in Jerusalem not by the number of ambassadors present, but by our attitude towards the Defence Forces and the capital. No country would be relieved of its obligation to send a representative to the parade,’ Israel had not asked permission”-1 want to underline this-“to declare Jerusalem its capital or to transfer the Knesset there, he said. The day would come when all the world’s statesmen would realize that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel by ‘virtue of the political fact we shall create’.” 54. The Israelis, as can be seen, in all arrogance and defiance declared Jerusalem their capital and transferred the Knesset there, and they are now confronting the world with a fait accompli. Mr, Galili’s Government is challenging the will of the Security Council and indeed the world at large when he states that the day would come when the world’s statesmen would realize that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel by virtue of “the political fact we shall create”. 55. I need not take much of the Council’s time at this stage to present evidence of more violations, more condemnations and more defiance. It will be sufficient to refer at this stage to the diversion of the Jordan River. Through this diversion the Israelis would not only deprive the helpless refugee families of their only means of livelihood, but would also gain serious military advantages. It is a fact that this Israel act is in violation of international law and of the Armistice Agreement in the area, which expressly states that no party should effect any change whatsoever which would give it any military advantage. But now, as a result of this diversion, Israel troops in the northern part of Jordan cross the river easily by foot to come into Jordan and commit their crimes, The attack on Tel El Arba’in and Jisr Sheikh Hussein committed on 29/30 April 1966 offers a glaring example, In that attack the Israelis crossed the river in the dark by foot and razed buildings to the ground, killed and murdered innocent civilians and then crossed back on foot into the Israel-occupied area. 56. There has been no fighting which the Israel authorities did not initiate. Not once did Jordan start the fighting, except in self-defence and after having suffered heavy Iosses and much destruction. We were hoping that the Security Council decision on As Samu would have its effects on the Israelis, but apparently they are still in no mood to abandon their aggressive campaign. I doubt whether they are in a mood to do so at. present, now that they are 57. Only last Sunday we witnessed a parade by supposedly American citizens, who carried an Israel flag in one hand and an American flag in the other. I just heard references to conflicting interests. I was wondering, in case of a conflict of interest between the United States of America and Israel, where their loyalty would be, with the Israel flag or the American flag. The behaviour of citizens of a country is an internal matter and comes squarely within the domestic jurisdiction of a Member State. I am aware of Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter. But I submit that when that behaviour affects the interests of other Member States, thirteen or seventeen Member States, I am entitled in sitting here to discuss the behaviour of pressure groups which are working against the interests of the Americans, a peaceloving people. The parade called for war against the Arabs. I saw in the parade many of the same faces that were in an earlier parade on Fifth Avenue to champion peace. 58. I shall not continue on this subject. This may be very embarrassing to a big Power, because it is not only a privilege to be a big Power, but it is also a responsibility. The responsibility is to fulfil the tasks of a big Power in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Charter and with human rights. 59. We do not think, Mr. President, that Israel is now in a mood to abandon its aggressive designs, despite your appeals and genuine desire. These events which I have described in brief before you indicate beyond a shadow of doubt that, firstly, there has been a continuing violation of the armistice demarcation line; secondly, there has been a violation of the no man’s land; thirdly, the acts committed by Israel regular forces constitute both a violation of the Armistice Agreement and acts of aggression within the meaning of Chapter VII of the Charter, This whole campaign is part of an expansionist plan aimed at acquiring more Arab lancls and displacing more Arab people. 60. We find, therefore, that the Security Council cannot but react to these grave developments. It should compel the Israel authorities to desist from committing suc11 deliberate acts of aggression. It should order the Israelis to retire from the demilitarized zone and the no man’s land and stop trespassing on the armistice demarcation line. 61. The worsening of the situation is caused by the lack of adequate action by the Security Council on every one of these violations. The Secretary-General, in his able report, reminded us that the underlying cause for this and other crisis situations in the Near East is the continuing Arab Israel conflict which has been present all along. This was explained very clearly in the complaint and in the interventions made by Mr. El Kony, representative of the United Arab Republic. 63. I have just come from the Arab East. I visited most of the places in Jordan that were the scenes of Israel brutality and crimes. I visited As Samu and talked to the people there, to the widows of the victims, to the orphans, to the injured, to those who suffered for no reason other than the fact that they happened to be on the demarcation line next to a foreign substance injected into our area against our will, against United Nations principles and the Charter, with the criminal intention to kill and to murder in order to create a vacuum for further expansion. 64. I visited a school of little children, adjacent to the armistice demarcation line in the village of Bidross. Some of the children, young boys of nine to ten years of age, were hit by the bullets of Israel soldiers who were shooting at them across the armistice line, while the children’ were playing in the school yard. I met some of those boys. They showed me their wounds. Most of them refuse now to leave their classes for the playground, afraid of more Israel bullets. Those children are now the victims of fear. They were treated by the Israel troops as though they were birds in a hunting game. These children will grow up, and I put tllis question to you, Mr-President, and through you to every member round this table: would it be surprising if many of these boys become members of El-Fatah, El-Assefa, or Abtal Al Awdah organizations? I visited a farmer who left his village and home in the Israel occupied area in order to live on, and cultivate, his land on the Jordanian side of the demarcation line. Recently, Israel attempted to annex this farmer’s land as part of its expansionist plan and for strategic purposes. Had Israel succeeded, this farmer would be away from his land and home. Would this helpless and aged man be blamed if he, at this unfortunate old age, turned out to be an El-Fatah or El-Assefa member? In all honesty and sincerity, I pose this question to all of you: how would you feel if you found yourself in the shoes of this aged man or in the place of any expellee from Palestine? 65. Some of you speak about sabotage and terrorism. I beg you to examine this matter carefully. The lands of all those people were annexed to Israel-occupied areas by various vicious and illegal means, either by conquest or forgery or armistice violations, or other evil Zionist means. The legitimate owners, the Arabs of Palestine, look and find foreigners coming from South Africa or Germany or other places to pick fruit from trees they had never planted, in lands they never lawfully possessed, owned or cultivated. 66. A Palestinian looks to the Council and hears some members speak about forgetting the past and looking to the future, Out of bitterness and despair, such legitimate owners InaY sometimes cross the armistice demarcation line into his land. He may put a little hand-made mine in a road, but the question arises; can this legitimate owner be called 68. Mr. Rafael spent some time speaking about El.Fatah. But can the Israel representative cite one single incident that took place in any place outside the Arab area, even by United Nations resolutions? Can he cite one single case where El-Fatal1 worked in an area not an Arab area according to your resolutions, or in an area not taken by conquest in violation of the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? 69. And if those foreign Zionist Irgunists-criminals-who committed the massacre of Deir Yassin were called by the leaders of Israel “freedom fighters” is it not ridiculous to call the Arab people of Palestine “terrorists”? Terrorism is not a part of our values, nor is it a part of our tradition. It was first imported into the Holy Land by the Zionist movement and by those who immigrated from Germany to carry on their Nazi-like terrorist activities in the Holy Land. In this connexion we may mention Mr. Rafael himself, the representative of Israel. Mr. Rafael is German, born in Berlin, and he came to Palestine to be among the leading figures of an underground movement. Mr. Rafael happens to be a member of Haganah-which may be news to many of you here. So when he speaks about terrorism, I do not think he is qualified to sit in judgement. He introduced terrorism to our area, to the Holy Land, to the land of peace. 70. The people of Palestine are becoming most impatient. They have waited for a just United Nations solution for nineteen years, Their present action is the result of the Security Council’s inaction, They are the victims of injustice and they are determined to regain their beloved homeland. They are human. They have become a forgotten people. But they have not forgotten and cannot forget their homeland. 71, I have not heard the name “Palestine” mentioned by those of you around this table who lead the opposition. This, we believe, is wrong. The problem is there and Palestine is there, and it is to regain their homeland that the people of Palestine will sacrifice their own blood. Any human being who does not sacrifice himself for a just cause does not deserve to live. A homeland is a precious thing, and by deleting the name “Palestine” from their speeches those representatives do not make a contribution to peace and security. This is a contribution to war; this is an invitation to every Palestinian to rise, to struggle, to fight, to die so that others may live. 72. War is a tragedy, No one wants war. But when injustice is permitted in the Council to continue because of 73. Having said this, I must express at this stage my astonishment at finding that, for the first time in the history of the question of Palestine, the right title was not incorporated in the agenda of the Security Council. For the first time in the history of this problem, not only have some members deliberately refused to acknowledge the presence of a problem called “The Palestine question”, but the correct title has not been placed on the agenda. The title “The Palestine question” was used in every single agenda in the past: the last one involved As Samu; the one before that was the Syrian complaint; the one before that was the Israel complaint against Syria. I have them here, and in every single one the correct title was used. 74. Now of course, I have no right to speak here on questions of procedure; I am not a member of the Council. But this is substance, this is a substantive matter. We are discussing here the matter of Palestine. The complaint of the United Arab Republic involves many phases of the problem of Palestine. You cannot discuss it in a vacuum. 75. Having said this, I must state that it is a waste of time to look at any of the items in isolation. We should go deeper. Let us look at the problem as a whole, understand it and be aware of all its phases. Let us know the whole truth, because only half the truth is a lie. 76. Those who objected to the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force should be reminded that it was never intended to stay in the area for ever. The Emergency Force was not a cure but a step to facilitate one. It was a bandage, not a cure. After eleven years of its presence with no attempt on its part to put an end to Israel’s arrogance and defiance, why should it surprise some quarters that a request was made for the withdrawal of the Emergency Force from the area? The Israel authorities have been exploiting and taking advantage of the presence of the Force in the south of Palestine and the presence of the United States Sixth Fleet to the west of Palestine in order to turn north against Syria and strike east against Jordan with safety. Thus, secure in the south and the west, Israel couId attack, murder and destroy. 77. And if tho’se who now champion the campaign against the United Arab Republic were indifferent to all such Israel defiances, are they in a position to criticize the exercise of a sovereign right by a sovereign State? And if Israel refused, after its Sinai aggression, to permit one single soldier of the Emergency Force to stand on the Israel-occupied part of the armistice demarcation line, can they come, are they entitled to come, and lecture us about the legality of the presence of the Force in the area? 78. Much has been said about the so-called right of Israel to passage through Aqaba. Let us not forget that the Israel presence on the Red Sea is a military presence resulting _... “.” from an act of occupation in vioratlon or a security Council cease-fire resolution. I have a map here which will give the 79. My delegation has said in the Council that illegia occupation does not give a right. It imposes a duty, a dut: to get rid of the usurper and occupier. What is more, th Security Council is duty bound to restore the condition which existed before the aggression, because aggression never conveys a right, The Emergency Force was neve intended as an instrument to validate what is illegal otherwise, one would be using the Force to defy the law o nations. 80. The Gulf of Aqaba is an Arab Gulf. Neither the Unite States nor the United Kingdom is entitled to perform th task of a self-appointed jurist, to pass judgement on th status of Arab waters in the Gulf of Aqaba. The issu before the Council is whether the United Arab Republic i applying in the Gulf now the same rules that were in font prior to the Israel aggression. This being the case, there : nothing new in ,the declaration of the United Ara Republic. It contained nothing but a return to tlil conditions existing prior to the 1956 campaign. 8 1. The other day the Security Council heard a lecture 11 the Israel representative on international reality. I belie\ that friends of Israel should advise him to give sorr thought to international morality, to the rule of law, f respect for fundamental human rights and strict adherent to the provisions of the Charter. 82. Mr. El Kony very ably illustrated to the Council wh the Israel representative meant by “international reality Mr. El Kony presented to the Council the run-down of t.1 events that led to the conquest of Naqab. He showed WI was the aggressor, the conqueror and the perpetual ins gator of all the troubles in the area. I therefore need nl dwell on this issue. 83. Finally, I should like to emphasize that it is the illegal acts of forcible occupation which form the bait ground for the so-called international reality. Let me reple to Israel, and let its friends know, too, that anything bu on force is unreal and could not receive the support oft international community, nor could it be in conformi with international law or morality, let alone the Armisti Agreement and the Charter. Might, conquest and aggressi cannot sustain a right and they are ultimately doomed disintegration and failure. 84. 1 heard the representative of the United Stat Mr. Goldberg, referring to the policy of the United Sta vis-h-vis the area, He referred to the territorial integrity 2 London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1957. 85. Our problem is that we are always victims of vague terms. And we are also victims of lack of communication with the great nation of the United States, because of a curtain put between us and the people of the United States. We can hardly reach them because of the influence of pressure groups in big cities. I hope the time will come soon when this curtain will be lifted, when justice will prevail, when knowledge and understanding will be the means of cbmmunication, because with understanding comes awareness, with awareness problems can be solved on the basis of justice and truth. 86. The determination of our people is stronger than all Israel fabrications and distortions. We have the means, the resources and the will which will enable us to put an end to any aggression, to regain our homeland and protect our liberty despite the efforts of those who want to destroy our liberty.

I now invite the representative of the United Arab Republic to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement.

Mr. President, as you may recall, at the end of my submission to the Council on 29 May [1343rd meeting/, I, on behalf of my Government, put before the Council certain suggestions which we deem essential for the partial alleviation of the present tension in the Middle East, The Secretary-General, in his report, stated-and I shall read, with your permission, Mr- President, the relevant part of the report: “There are other possible courses of action which might contribute substantially to the reduction of tension in the area. In paragraph 16 of my report to the Security Council on 19 May (S/7896] I referred t? the possibility of the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice ‘Commission providing a limited form of United Nations presence in the area. In that report I stated that ‘it would most certainly be helpful in the present situation if the Government of Israel were to reconsider its position and resume its participation in the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission. I suggest that the Council consider this possible approach also during its search for ways out of the present crisis. This form of United Nations presence could to some extent fill the vacuum left by the withdrawal of the Force.“[S/7906, para. 15.1 89. Therefore, consonant with my previous suggestions and in support of the ideas contained in, the Secretary- General’s report, my Government is presenting to the ‘Mindjitll of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, in accordance with Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Charter; ‘LCo~zscious of the grave situation prevailing in the Middle East resulting from the inability of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization to function in accordance with the r&.olutions of the Security Council and in conformity with the obligations of the parties to the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement; ‘NotiMg with grave concern that in accordance with the various reports of the Secretary-General and, in particular, his latest report [S/7906/, the aforementioned United Nations machinery became particularly inoperative due to the attitude of Israel authorities regarding the General Armistice Agreement; “Considering that the unilateral denunciation by Israel of the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement cannot be accepted or tolerated by the Security Council, and does not absolve Israel of its obligations and responsibilities under that Agreement; “‘Fully convinced that such unilateral denunciation by Israel and its flagrant violation of the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement is responsible for the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East, threatening international peace and security in the area “1. Decides that the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement is still valid and reiterates that the United Nations machinery emanating therefrom should be fully operative; “2. Calls upon the Israel Government to respect and abide by its obligations and responsibilities as stipulated in the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement and to act accordingly; “3. Instructs the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization to proceed promptly and reinstitute within two weeks the headquarters of the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission in El Auja from where it discharged its duties prior to the Israel unilateral action forcing its expulsion from that zone; “4. Decides to bolster additional measures necessary for the full implementation of this resolution in case of the non-compliance by the Israel Government with the terms of this resolution; “5. Requests the Secretary-General to contact the parties to the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement for the immediate implementation of this decision and to report to the Security Council within fifteen days for its approval with regard to additional measures; 91. May I now be permitted to make a comment on the statement made yesterday 11344th meetingj- “by Mr. Goldberg, the representative of the United States. In that intervention, Mr. Goldberg opted not to argue the merits of the non-applicability of article 16, paragraph 4, of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, although he was the one who invoked this article in his statement on 29 May [1343rd meeting], I wish to express my gratification that Mr. Goldberg, to satisfy his professional pride, at least ventured to discuss legal arguments. He, however, chose only one aspect. He referred to Security Council resolution 95 (1951) of 1 September 1951. 92. It is true that that resolution was adopted by the Council, but two highly important factors affected the resolution. First, four of the nine States that voted for the adoption of the resolution were parties to the dispute, and according to Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter, “a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting”. It follows that, according to the provisions of the Charter, the resolution should not have been adopted. 93. That there was a dispute was clear from the fact that Israel and other countries, some of which have tried in vain to hide behind Israel, were disputing our rights to impose restrictions on the passage of some war mntlriel to Israel through the canal. 94. The representative of Egypt quoted and placed in the records of the Security Council meetings at that time the very clear and unequivocal views expressed by the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States at earlier meetings of the Council. He showed how much they supported the opinion that a party to a dispute should abstain from voting, He expressed his belief that an elementary principle of justice required that a party to a dispute should not be a judge of it, and that it was this great principle which inspired the provision in Article 27 of the Charter that a party to a dispute should abstain from voting. 95. Yet, when there was a case which would not uphold their own interests, the same members whom he had quoted challenged the relevance of their previous views. However, apparently political expediency was the aim and method of those members of the Council at that time. Need I say that they still maintain that attitude? 96. Secondly, the resolution was based on the assumption that for two and a half years no fighting had occurred between Egypt and the Israel authorities. Again, for political aims, those members of the Council at that time flagrantly disregarded the numerous aggressive acts committed by the Israelis during those two and a half years, in spite of the fact that they were presented to the Council in 98. This, we contest. In addition to the argument v&icll have already put before the Council, I shall limit myself a reference to the following opinion of the United Sta Supreme Court in the case of Ludecke versus Watkins, which it was declared in 1948 that “War does not ce: with a cease-fire . . ,“.3 Moreover, the late Justice l?rar furter in the same case indicated that “ ‘The state of W may be terminated by treaty or legislation or Presidenl pr0clamation”.4 Therefore, according to United Sta practice, an armistice does not end the state of war.

The Soviet delegat:i would like to make some comments on the question unl discussion in the Council. 100. At today’s meeting of the Council the represental of Jordan, Mr. El-Farra, has drawn the Council’s attent to the fact that the question we are discussing she appear in the Council’s agenda under the general hea ding “The Palestine question”, as has always been the practicum the past. In this connexion we shouId like to state that consider that the point made by Mr. El-Farra is a valid C: and we believe that the Security Council should make necessary correction in the wording of the item un discussion. 101. In his statements here in the Council, the re:i sentative of the United States of America has on a nurr of occasions delivered himself of some very exten judgements on subjects including, inter alia, internatiq navigation, the principles governing international relat:i in that field, and so forth. At this meeting too, when representative of the United States spoke again to rr some comments on his draft resolution, we heard c more for the umpteenth time the all-too-familiar collec of terms such as “peace-loving”, “justice”, “legality”, so on. 102. In our view at least, these statements, whicl~ SCI like wearisome sermons, create a strange impression. not indeed ironical that the official representatives of United States of America should here be trying to pre Washington as a champion of “peace”, an observe “legality” and “justice”, and on a world-wide scale at tl 103. As one listens to statements of this kind, one cali help wondering how the United States representat discourses about exalted principles of international la\:1 supposed to tally with the deeds and practical act 3 United States Reports: Cases Adjudged in the Supreme c vol. 335, p. 167. 4 Ibid., p. 168. 104. We venture to ask what international principles can be invoked, for instance, to justify the unlawful acts of the United States of America against Cuba. One is forced inevitably to conclude that people in Washington begin to think about international law only when it suits the purposes of the White House. When it does, the statements of United States representatives are liberally strewn, as if from some cornucopia, with references to “international agreements”, ‘Ijustice , ” “rules of law” and “legal practice”. But when it does not suit Washington’s interests, all signs of attachment to international laws-and particularly observance of these laws-disappear without a trace. 105. I think, gentlemen, that it migrtc be interesting for us to hear a reply to this particular question from the representative of the United States of America in the Security Council.

I now invite the representative of Israel to take a place at the Security Council table and to make a statement.

In the course of two meetings of the Security Council held yesterday and today, representatives of five Arab States have launched an assault of unprecedented ferocity against my country. They have threatened Israel and the world with total war. They have tried with the threat of sanctions to intimidate countries which uphold international morality and legality. They have threatened to destroy the independence of my country and to extinguish the existence of my people. That is the message which the representatives of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt have brought to this Council. 108. They have taken off the make-up of diplomatic niceties and shown to us and to the world the contorted face of brutal reality. They have employed the worn-out and transparent technique of portraying the victim of aggression as the aggressor. In shining innocence and with flowing eloquknce they come to the Council and pretend to have no offensive intentions towards Israel. What a mockery. They enumerate Israel’s alleged violations of United Nations resolutions and proclaim their faithful compliance with resolutions of the United Nations and the provisions of the General Armistice Agreements. 109. Did the Arab States take up arms against the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947 [lSl (II)],. providing for the establishment of Israel, or did they not? Did the Security Council on 1 September 1951 adopt a resolution (95 (19.51)] outlawing blockade practices against Israel, or did it not? Did that resolution state in clear terms that such belligerent actions as blockades are incompatible with the armistice r&me, or did it not? 11 I. The representative of Egypt has openly declared here that his country is in a state of war with Israel and that it is therefore permitted to carry out acts of war and belligerence against it. That is his justification for the blockade instituted in the Gulf of Aqaba, and maintained in the Suez Canal. 112. It is the ruling of this Council that the Armistice Agreements terminate belligerence, but it is the policy of the Arab States to practise this outlawed belligerence. That is the crux of the matter, that is the. fundamental controversy, The Armistice Agreements envisaged the restoration of total peace, while the Arab States are engaged in preparations for total war. 113. Belligerence is not a one-way street. It cannot be travelled with safety and impunity. The representatives of the Arab States who have spoken here wish to assure the Council that they do not intend to take offensive action against Israel. Yet they practise, yet they proclaim, a people’s war. They organize armed incursions into my country, they plan and execute sabotage and terrorism in Israel. Their leaders openly threaten to destroy Israel. They mass large offensive forces on the borders of my country and proclaim a blockade. They proclaim a blockade in an international waterway which is vital for my country. 114. I ask the members of this Council to judge for themselves: is this offensive action, or is it not? IS this compliance with the Charter obligations of peaceful coexistence, or is it not? 115. My country has faced that kind of unrelenting warfare with supreme restraint. I wonder whether any other State represented here or in the United Nations as a whole would have exercised such patience under similar circumstances and provocations. My people have manifested that patience, but it should not be mistaken for a lack of determination to defend its liberty and to fight for its existence.

We have before us the United States draft resolution [5’/7916/Rev.l]. My delegation has already endorsed the idea of an appeal for restraint to the parties concerned-in fact, to al] Member States. But it seems to me that the terms of the appeal would have to be so carefully drafted as to command the approval of the overwhelming majority of the Sej-:urity Council. I would therefore defer any further comments on this question until our next meeting. 117. Speaking this afternoon, the representative of the United Arab Republic read out the +text of a draft 118. We reserve the right to speak again on this matter. 11.9. Mr. MAKONNEN (Ethiopia): I shall not comment on the draft resolutions that have been submitted today, except to say that we shall, of course, study all suggestions with care and attention. My brief remarks will deal only with the possible methods of approach that the Council may see fit to consider with a view to making its efforts both realistic and expeditious. 120. It will be recalled that in my last statement at the 1343rd meeting of the Council on 29 May with regard to the present crisis in the Middle East, I indicated the readiness of my delegation to join in any effort directed at addressing an appeal to the principal parties concerned in the crisis to refrain from engaging in any act that might aggravate the situation, and thus to allow the Council to gain time for its efforts to preserve peace in the area. I can only reiterate today that this readiness on the part of my delegation continues and that the need to gain time is as imperative as ever. As I also said in my last statement, I should hasten to add that such an appeal, if its great value is not to be lost, should enjoy the unanimous support of all members of the Security Council. 121. My delegation believes that this limited but highly important initial objective that we have set for ourselves, as it emerged from the first round of the debate in the Council, is within our reach, provided we diagnose the situation realistically and avoid at this stage all elements and arguments that would tend to create division and discord in our present deliberations in the Security Council. 122. It is well-nigh impossible to prescribe a solution for this long-present crisis in the Middle East, the present “crisis situation” as the Secretary-General has put it, is but the latest expression of “the continuing Arab-Israel conflict which has been present all along” [S/7906, para. 2/. 128. I respectfully submit that the alternative could only be one fraught with great danger. Is it too much, then, to ask for restraint and for limited time to enable the Council to proceed with its urgent and serious task of preserving 123. It is thus well-nigh impossible to prescribe a solution for this long-standing problem at one stroke, as it were. Even as we consider this latest expression of a long-standing conflict, we should have a two-phased and double-pronged approach to the problem. The first phase of that approach, that my delegation approaches the challenging task that the which I shall call the “appeal phase”, if it is to be useful Security Council is called upon to face in the vital area of should, in our opinion, aim at restraining the principal the Middle East. parties and all other countries from taking action that could only aggravate the situation. This can only be done in the form of an appropriate appeal formulated in language that 130. Mr. GOLDBERG (United States of America): The representative of the Soviet Union, my friend and colleague will not be susceptible to interpretation by any party as prejudicing some of its claims of long-standing sovereign Mr. Fedorenko, has given the Council a disquisition on international law-not only on this situation, but on other rights with regard to a number of issues with which situations-and he has asked me to answer his legal members of the Council are only too familiar. commentary. I am glad to oblige, and this is my answer. 125. It is needless to point out that absolute caution is necessary if we are to obtain the kind of unanimous resolution that we have in mind. What we should aim for at this first phase is to gain time, time badly needed to carry out intensive consultations and to allow passions to subside, thereby creating an atmosphere in which some issues of long standing can be tackled. 126. Such an appeal should thus set the stage for the next phase, for the second approach, to deal with the fundamental issues and other issues arising therefrom. This second phase, which, by mutual accord, can be a phase of a defined period of time, can be the phase of intensive effort by the Council to resolve the problem by peaceful means. There is, in our opinion, much to be said for the need for quiet diplomacy and intensive negotiation under the auspices of the Security Council. A public debate such as the one we have had in the last few days, while useful in clarifying matters and issues, also has the disadvantage of hardening positions. We thus feel that the Secretary-General should continue to undertake further contacts with the parties principally concerned in the crisis. Given his unique position and personality, the confidence of the parties that he personally enjoys and the prestige and authority of his high office, we believe that 11 Tbant has a definite and constructive role to play in preventing this dangerous situation from deteriorating further. 127. I know that calling for more time is easier said than done. I know that for some members of the Security Council this may seem to be a long-drawn-out process. This might also be interpreted by the parties concerned as a passive attitude, an evasion of one’s responsibility in the face of what they consider to be, from their point of view, a clear case for immediate rectification. But, on the other hand, what is the alternative to a further and persistent search for a solution? peace in that troubled area? My delegation submits, in alI humility, that it is not too much to ask for that. 129. It is in that spirit and in the spirit of this statement 132. Ambassador Fedorenko also complains that I have repeatedly used words such as “peace-loving”, “justice” and “legality”. I should not imagine that it would be necessary in this Council to apologize for using these words, and I regret that I have to serve notice on him that I shal.l use them again and again and again until they are heeded. I shall also say to Ambassador Fedorenko, with all friendship and respect, that I do not purport to tell him how to phrase the views of his Government, and I also say to him that I would thank him not to tell me how to phrase the views of my Government.

I said the other day; and I repeat it now, that at any time when the representative of the Soviet Union is prepared, with respect to an item properly on the agenda, to talk about the matter and to vote on it, I am ready to do so, whether it concerns Vie&Nam, Cuba or anything else. The chips are down not only when you make speeches but when you vote: I have found that when we try to inscribe items so that we can discuss these important issues, there are objections. Let the objections be withdrawn and we shall proceed to discuss these subjects at the proper time, We are discussing the item on our agenda now. 133. I am not surprised, however, that the words “peaceloving”, ‘tjustice” and “legality” have a strange sound to Ambassador Fedorenko. I am just surprised that he admits this so frankly and so publicly.

We are convinced once again that the United States representative is evading a direct answer to our question; and it is not, of course, without reason that he is evading it. In other words, he does not have any explanations to offer. I34. Mr. FEDORENKO (Union of Z?oviet Socialist Republics) (translated jiom Russian): We have just heard an expost;, as one might call it, by the representative of the United States, who-as was to be expected-continued his exercises in legal terminology and eloquence and, experienced lawyer that he is, refrained from replying to the substance of the question.

It was, naturally, with keen interest that my delegation, which had expected to make its contribution to this debate today, learned of the draft resolution circulated by the United States delegation at the beginning of this meeting. Although this text is a statement of views which have already been set forth in the Council, I am sure that all will agree with me that it requires on the part of our Governments very careful study, befitting the gravity of the present crisis. The same is true of the text which has been read out to us by the representative of the United Arab Republic and on which the representative of India has requested a vote by the Council. 135. We have tried to draw a comparison between Washington’s statements and its acts. We have confined ourselves to asking one single question relating to the statements made by the official representative of the United States of America in this exalted body during the discussion of the situation in the Near East. 136. We have indeed heard many insistent reaffirmations of Washington’s attachment to the lofty principles of ‘?ustice”, “lawfulness”, “legality”, “morality”, and so on and so forth. 143. My delegation would, in any case, like to have more time to study these two draft resolutions and any other proposals which may be made by members of the Council. I therefore consider it advisable to propose that we adjourn until the day after tomorrow, until Friday morning, for example, to give us time for reflection and the usual consultations among members of the Council. 137. In our earlier statements we had already drawn attention to what the White I-Iouse is saying, and what the armed forces of the United States of America are doinginvading foreign territories, violating every rule of law, and carrying out reprisals against entire peoples. 138. The question we are asking today has one very specific purpose. We should like the United States Ambassador, who is often addressed as “Judge”, to tell us how he judges the slatements made by official circles in the United States of America, and the practical acts which completely contradict these statements.

The representative of France has suggested that the Council be adjourned until Friday morning. If this is agreeable to the incoming President and if there is no objection, the meeting will be adjourned until Friday morning at 10.30. The representative of Denmark, who will be the next President of the Security Council, has signified to me that this is agreeable to him. 139. The peoples of the world base their judgements on deeds, and not on eloquent statements. And we ask the United States Ambassador: “Now do you explain not the The meeting rose at 5.55 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATlONS PUBLICATIONS United Notions publicationr.mey be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Notions, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications der Nations Unies sent en vente dons les libroiries et les ogencer d4poritaires du monde entier. Informer-vous aupr&s de votre librairie ou adresrez-vous L: Notions Units, Section des ventes, New York ov Gen&ve. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNtDAS Las publicociones de Ias Nocioncr Unidos est6n en vento en librerios y ccuos dirtribuidorar en todar porter del mundo. Conrulte a IV librero o dirijore a: Naciones Unidas, Secci6n de Ventos, Nucva York o Gincbra. Litho in U.N. Price: $U.S. 0.50 (or equivnlent in other currencies) 06042-December 1970--2,100