S/PV.1348 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions previously taken by the Council, and with the consent of the Council, 1 now invite the representatives of Israel, the United Arab Republic, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Lebanon, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber in order to participate without vote in the discussion. At the invitation of the President, Mr. A. Eban (lsrael), Mr. M. A. El Kony (United Arab Republic), Mr. M. H. El-Farra (Jordan), Mr. G. J. Totneh (Syria), Mr. G. Hakim (Lebanon), Mr. A. Pachachi (Iraq), Mr. A. T. Benhima (Morocco), Mr. G. AI-Rachuch (Saudi Arabia) and Mr. G, A. Al-Rashid (Kuwait) took the places reserved for them

Letters bave now also been received from the Permanent Representatives of Tunisia [X/7928] and \Libya [S/7934/ requesting that they be invited to participate without vote in the discussion. If there is no objection, K propose to invite those two representatives also to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber in order to participate without vote in the discussion. At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. Mestiri (Tunisia) and Mr. W. El Boun’ (Libya) took the places reserved for them

The Security Council Will now continue its discussion of the three items inscribed on its agenda. 4. Since the Council was convcned yesterday morning to consider immediately the serious situation in the Middle East, members bave been continuously engaged in urgent consultations as to the course of action to be taken by the Council in this emergency situation. These consultations have now resulted in unanimous agreement on a draft resolution which calls for an immediate cesse-fire, In my capacity as President of the Council, 1 have the honour to present this draft resolution (S/7935], the text of which reads as foilows: “The Security Council, “Noting the oral report of the Secretary-General in this situation, “‘Having heard the statements made in the Council, Y’oncerned at the outbreak of fighting and with the menacing situation in the Near East, “1. Culls upon the Governments concerned to take forthwith as a first step all measures for an immediate 5. 1 would suggest, if members of the Council agree, that we proceed to the vote on this draft resolution without debate. It was SO decided. A vote was taken by show of hands. The draft resolution was adopted unanimously. 1 6, The PRESIDENT: 1 shah ask the Secretary-General to transmit the resolution to the parties concerned and to report to the Council as soon as possible. 1 am confident that 1 express the unanimous wish of the members of the Council when 1 appeal most urgently to the parties to comply immediately with the provisions of this resolution. 7. There are a number of representatives who wish to explain their vote. The first speaker on my list is the representative of the United States, on whom 1 now call.

In the resolution just adopted the Security CounciI, acting in the exercise of its responsibilities under the Charter, has issued a clear cal1 for an end to the hostilities in the Near East. This resolution is a first step on the road back towards peace. It carrles the full authority of the United Nations. It is now the duty of a11 the parties concerned to comply fully and promptly with the terms of this resolution. It is equally the duty of every Member of the United Nations to support the implementation of the resolution by the full weight of its influence. 9. The resolution itself, as a11 members of the Council know, is the result of intensive political efforts here at the United Nations during the past thirty-six hours, under the leadership of our President and by various Governments and their representatives here. It reflects a successful harmonizing of our respective points of view towards a single goal: to quench the flames of war in the Near East and to begin to move towards peace in the area. 10. This resolution, with its appeal for a cesse-fire, calls for precisely the action which my delegation has been urging since we met yesterday morning (1347th meeting] to consider the outbreak of hostilities. Indeed, it is consistent with the spirit in which we have approacbed every stage of ,this crisis. We have throughout supported every effort by our distinguished Secretary-General to maintain the peace in the area and sought, to the best of our ability, to exercise a restraining influence on the parties COnCeTMd. We have expressed willingness to join in the search for peace here in the United Nations and by our own diplomatie efforts as well. Regrettably, our efforts and those of many others, including the Secretary-General, to prevent a war ended in failure. When that was apparent, my 1 See resolution 233 (1967). 11. We deeply regret that SO much time has been lost in the process. However, it is gratifying that other members of the Council have now reached the same conclusion and that we cari now issue a unanimous appeal to the parties to lay down their an-ns. It is our fervent hope that the Council’s appeal Will be immediately and fully complied with. 12. We believe that a cesse-fire represents the urgent flrst step in restoring peace to the Near East. Once this is accomplished, my delegation believes that the Couneil should then turn its immediate attention to the other steps that Will be required to achieve a more lasting peace. In that approach, my country’s policy remains as President Johnson stated it on 23 May in these words: ‘<TO the leaders of a11 nations of the Near East 1 wish to say what three American Presidents have said before-that the United States is firmly commltted to the support of the political independence and territorial integrity of a11 the nations of the area. “ . . . “The United States has consistently sought to have good relations with a11 States of the Near East. Regrettably this has not always been possible, but we are convinced that our differences with individual States in the area and their differences with each other must be worked out peacefully and in accordance with accepted international practice.” [sec the 1343th meeting, para. 24.1 13. It was our concern about this that brought us to this Council very early and prompted us in a series of efforts here to avert what has occurred. In implementation of thls policy directed to a11 countries in the Near East, when the fïres have been dampened and tension reduced we stand ready to join in efforts to bring a lasting peace to the area in which co-operative programmes for the economic and social development of a11 countries of a11 countries of the region would be an integral part. 14. Before concluding, it is my duty to speak of a specific matter related to the position 1 have just reiterated. During the past twenty-four hours fantastic allegations have been made about United States aircraft being involved in the hostilities in the Near East. Those allegations are totally without foundation in fact. They are made up out of whole cloth. 1 take this opportunity in the Security Council on the complete authority of the United States Government to deny them categorically without any ifs, ands or buts. Indeed, yesterday morning, 5 June, within hours after first hearing such charges, my Government denied them in a forma1 statement issued by the Department of Defense as follows: “There have been reports that United States aircraft from aircraft carriers assigned to the Sixth Fleet have 15. Charges of this sort at a time Iike this car-mot be treated lightly. They are in the category of a cry of “Fire! ” in a crowded theatre. They have been used in tbe overt incitement of mob violence against United States diplomatic and other installations in several Arab States. These false reports, on the motives for which 1 do not wish to speculate, have been propagated in a highly inflammable situation. In these circumstances, my Government considers it necessary to take prompt steps to prevent the further spread of these dangerous falsehoods. 22. In this regard, 1 wish to associate my delegation with the urgent appeal that has been made by the world’s religious Ieaders and by the Secretary-General, that tlic ,Holy City of Jerusalem be dcclared an apen city and thus be spared from involvement in the present conflict. Q 16 ‘With this in mind, 1 am authorized to announce in this uncil and to propose two concrete measures. States is prepared, first, to co-operate in Y he United an mrediate impartial investigation by-- the United Nations of Zhese charges, apd.to offer>%cilities to the United Nations in that investigation; and second, as a part of or in addition to such an investigation, the United States is prepared to invite United Nations personnel aboard our aircraft carriersin the Mediterranean today, tomorrow, or at the convenience of the United Nations, to serve as impartial observers of the activities of our planes in the area and to verify the past activities of our planes from our officia1 records and from the log that each ship carries. These observers Will, in addition, be free to interview air crews on these carriers without inhibition, SO as to determine their activities during the days in question. Their presence as observers on these carriers will be welcomed throughout the period of this crisis and SO long as these ships are in the eastern waters of the Mediterranean. 23. The immediate objective of the Council must be to return the present situation of military conflict to a situation and position from which a fair and just settlement of issues cari be obtained. The Council has been wise, whcn faced with such a situation fraught with dangers not only to the areas concerned but also to the peace of the whole world, to avoid the experience and spectacle of the past weeks of allowing itself to be bogged down in futile debate which cari only take it into a vicious circle of evercontinuing discussion. 24. Now that we have agreed on the first step, let us make up for the lost time and opportunity by following up our decision of today with concerted action which cari lead to the creation of fair and equitable conditions for a just and lasting settlement. 17. In tbe meantirne, 1 ask any Government interested in peace to see to it that these false and inflammatory charges are given no further credence by any source within its control, 25. As the representative of a country that is a neighbour of long and good standing of this area of the Middle East, the great cradle of religions and civilizations, 1 speak today with a heart filled with sorrow. My country and people have been closely associated with all the peoples of this area and have lived with them in friendly coexistence based on mutual respect throughout a long and glorious history stretching from time immemorial to the present day. This is obviously. not the time for historical soliloquy, but my mind’s eye cannot help looking back on the long history and experience we have shared with a11 the peoples of this @on down through the ages. We had fruitful associations with tlie peoples of this regic,~ when the great pharaohs of Egypt built the wondrous pyrdmids; when the great kings of Jerusalem built the temples; when the Assyrians and Babylonians were the great powers of their day; when tlle meaningful message of “Peace on earth, goodwill toward men” went out from the manger of Bethlehem. And again we were there when the great Prophet, the Father of Islam, proclaimed his clarion cal1 for the glory of the Everlasting God. 18, In conclusion, let me commend to every State the Council’s resolution just adopted. Our duty now as Member States bound by the Charter is to place a11 the influence at the command of our respective Governments behind the fulfilment of the decision unanitnously arrivcd at by the Council. Properly carried out, this resolution Will be a major step towards peace and security in the Near East and Will provide a point of reference from which to resolve underlying problems in a spirit of justice and equity.

1 thank you, Mr. Presi. dent, for the opportunity to explain my delegation’s understanding of the cesse-fire resolution that tbe Council has just adppted. 20. 1 should say first of a11 that my delegation looks on this resolution as the first of many urgent steps, and as one with a limited but vital objective: that of meeting the pressing requirement of a tragic situation of large-scale armed conflict which has corne to exist in the area of the Middle East, 26. Similarly, today, in this age of freedom and progress, we share with our brethren in the Middle East common aspirations solidified by our African-Asian union of peace, progress and a better life for ail of our peoples. 28. We consider this to be the first vital step that the Council has to take, and we shall of course continue to add our modest but genuine efforts to those of the members of the Council in the urgent steps we must take together in order to bring a just and lasting peace to this war-tormented region. 29. In conclusion, 1 should like to present to the delegations of India and Brazil my Government’s sincere condolences at the tragic death of Indian and Brazilian soldiers serving the United Nations cause of peace in the area. May the memory of their sacrifice be a shining example to a11 servants of peace and to a11 peoples everywhere dedicated to the preservation of international peace and security now and for a11 time.

The Council has thus called for a cessation of hostilities. This decision which would have spared us SO much death and destruction had it been possible to make it earlier, as we would SO dearly have wished, must now be implemented and without any delay. Lives and property must be safeguarded and among that property my country gives a preeminent place to the historical and spiritual capital which the Holy Places reprcsent for Christendom. 3 1. The French delegation, for its part, cari scarcely imagine that the appeal which thc Council has just unanimously addressed to the parties involved Will go unheeded, for the States in question are surely aware that behind this resolution stands the full authority of the United Nations, 32. Once the hostilities have ceased, in accordance with the Council’s Will, we shal1 have a long road before us. We shall bave to exercise close watch over the implementation of our resolution and over the consequences flowing from implementation. The United Nations Will bave major problems to salve; and we are confident that it Will be able to set purposefully about solving them. It is the stability of the Near East and pe’ace that are at stake, 33. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): Mr. President, I must first ask your indulgence if 1 make a short statement on a matter of great importance to my Government and my country. Speaking today in the House of Commons, my Prime Minister referred to false accusations that British aircraft have taken part in the fighting on the side of Israel. These are the words that my Prime Minister usecl: “Her Majesty’s Government have already categorically denied this monstrous story, and a11 our Ambassadors in the Arab countries have been instructed to make clear to the local Governments that this’ is a malicious and mischievous invention. One story alleges that aircraft 34. 1 have today, Mr. President, addressed to you a letter on this important matter dealing with these lies which have been circulated in various forms here in New York. 1 shall read out this short letter, if 1 may, because it is necessary that these matters should be finally disposed of. The letter reads as follows: “Her Majesty’s Government have been shocked by reports emanating from the Middle East and carried by officia1 news media alleging that British aircraft have taken part in the recent fighting in the Middle East on the side of Israel. These reports are malicious fabrications. There is no grain of truth in them. “It is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to avoid taking sides in the conflict in the Middle East and they have done everything they cari to bring about a cesse-fire as soon as possible. As stated by my Secretary of State in the House of Commons yesterday, a11 British forces in the area have been under the strictest instructions not 10 become involved in any way. “Al1 United Kingdom Ambassadors in the Arab countries have been instructed to make clear to the Govemments to which they are accredited that these reports are malicious and mischievous inventions and that no British aircraft, whether carrier-based or land-based, nor any other British forces, have taken any part whatsoever in the recent fighting. “1 should be grateful if you would have this letter circulated immediately as a Security Coundl document.” /S/7936.] 1 thank you for allowing me to deal with that urgent and important matter first. 35. 1 would also wish, turning to the resolution which we have just unanimously adopted, to express our gratitude to you, Mr. President, for the patience and the steady determination which you have shown in leading us through difficult and most anxious discussions since you took over the duties of your high office. We express our appreciation also to a11 who have contributad to the result which we have now recorded. 36. In expressing my Government’s warm welcome for the resolution which we have just adopted, 1 have no intention of going over now a11 the ground covered in our debates in recent weeks. It is quite unncessary to do SO, since the position of my Government on a11 the main issues has been made absolutely plain, both in statements in this Council and in speeches by my Prime Minister and my Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons. Our position on those main issues remains unchanged. 37. 1 have only one other comment to make now following the decision we have just taken together. Those 38. 1 should also like to join with my fellow members of the Council in expressing to the representatives of India and Brazil our sorrow and our concern that their soldiers, who have represented SO long the cause of international peace and the cause of the United Nations, have been lest. 1 wish to express to them the sympathy and respect and gratitude of my Government. 39. Having today taken this first essential step, we realize that only a supreme effort cari enable us to rise to our obligation-our obligation to search for and establish a just settlement and to restore the authority of the United, Nations. 1 trust that we shall not fail to make that supreme effort together now.

The Security Council has just adopted a resolution calling for an immediate cesse-fire and the cessation of military activities in the Near East. The Council members have thus unanimously corne out in favour of putting an immediate and decisive end to Israel’s aggression against the Arab countries. 41. The military conflict in that region has certainly not arisen without cause, As is well known, during the past few weeks tension in the Near East increased considerably and from Tel-Aviv there resounded threats against the Arab States and appeals for large-scale punitive operations against them, for a so-called “decisive” blow, and SO on and SO forth. 42. Even before the Arab countries took legitimate defcnsive measures, a state of war psychosis had developed in Israel and the Governmcnt of Israel, as we .a11 know, received authority from its Parliament on 9 May to carry out rnilitary operations against the Arab countries. 43. The Soviet Union here in the Security Council and elsewhere bas repeatedly stated its attitude and presented a basic evaluation in respect of #he events in the Near East. The statement of the Soviet Government of 23 May 1967 emphasized, inter ah, that Israel ;rould have been unable to carry out its policy of aggression and provocation against the Arab countries but for the direct and indirect encouragement of that line by certain irnperialist circles whieh seek to bring back colonial oppression to Arab lands. It is no secret to anyone that in the present circumstances these 45. For decades, the Soviet Union has provided assistance of ail kinds to the peoples of the Arab countries in their just struggle for national liberation, against colonialism and for their peaceful economic development. The Soviet Union is doing and intends to go on doing eveiything possible to prevent any vioIation of peace and security in the Near East in order to protect the legitimate rights of nations. 46. We consider it our duty to make a full affirmation once again of the Soviet Union% position of principle. 47. Had the Security Council taken the necessary measures to restrain the fanaticism of extremist circles in Tel-Aviv, the world would not now be witnessing a new aggression by Israel against the United Arab Republic and other Arab countries, an aggression which has taken the form of open military conflict. It is important, in this connexion, to note that the extremist circles in Tel-Aviv launched this aggression at the very time when the Council was engaged in considering the question of the Near Eastern situation and hurled a challenge at the Council in SO doing. 48. In ,his statement here in the Council on 5 June 1967 [1347th meeting], the representative of the United Arab Republic, Mr. El Kony, said that Israel had “committed a cowardly and treacherous aggression against my country”, and adduced the relevant facts. The representative of the United Arab Republic informed the Council that Israel armed forces had launched attacks in the Gaza strip, the Sinai peninsula, and the Suez Canal zone, and on the Cairo airport and other airports in the territory of the Republic. An extremely serious situation has thus been created; hostilities have not only not ceased but are spreading, and a military conflict has flared up in the Near East which, the Soviet Government is convinced, is not in the interest of the peoples, to say the least. 49. On 5 June the Soviet Government made the following statement, to which we wish to draw the Security Council’s attention: “On 5 June 1967, Israel commenced hostilities against the United Arab Republic, thereby committing an aggression. The armed forces of the United Arab Republic are engaged in battle against the Israel troops which have invaded the territory of that State. Tank, artillery and air force units of both sides are in action. “The Syrian Arab Republic has taken the side of the United Arab Republic and is giving it armed assistance in repelling aggression. Jordan has announced that it is in a “Thus a military conflict has broken out in the Near East because of the adventurism of the rulers of one country, Israel, encouraged by covert and overt actions of certain imperialist circles. The country has been driven into such dangerous actions by leaders who keep saying that they are waging a struggle for the existence of Israel as a State. But if anything could underrnine the foundations of the development as well as the very existence of the State of Israel, it is the policy of reckless adventurism which the ruling circles in Israel have chosen today. “By launching aggression against neighbouring Arab States, the Government of Israel has defied the United Nations Charter and the elementary rules of international law. The Government of Israel cannot say that it was unaware of where its policy was leading, nor cari it say that it was unsure what position peace-loving States would take in the event of its unleashing a war of aggression. The Government of Israel knew that war could be avoided. The Soviet Union and other peaceloving States had called upon it to do precisely that. But it chose the path of war. There cari be no doubt that the military adventure undertaken by Israel Will rebound first of a11 upon Israel itself. “The Soviet Union, faithful to its policy of assisting peoples who are victims of aggression, and States which havc freed themselves from the colonial yoke, declares its resolute support for the Governments and peoples of the United Arab Republic, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Jordan and other Arab States and expresses confidence in the success of their just struggle for their independence and sovereign rights. 54. Confronted by this situation, the Security Council, directly it was notified of the fighting, should with a11 speed have taken immediate provisional steps to halt the hostdities. This is a situation in which it is imperative for the Security Council to cal1 for an immediate cesse-fïre. This is our first duty if we are to prevent the conflict from spreading; this is the first essential step before we cari undertake once again the long and diffïcult task of resolving the dispute. The urgency of this first basic step and the evident need makes it unnecessary for us to expatiate further in support of a provisional measure which is obvious in these circumstances. “In condemning Israel aggression, the Govemment of the USSR demands that the Govemment of Israel, as a first urgent step towards ending the military conflict, cesse military activities against the United Arab Republic, Syria, Jordan and the other Arab countries immediately and unconditionally and withdraw its troops behind the armistice line I 55. The hopes of the world rested on the work of this Council; we have taken vigorous action and should continue to do SO, What is at stake here, perhaps today more than ever before, is the Organization’s prestige. Peace and the future depend on our ski11 and decision. Let us not tomorrow have to rue the fact that we failed to act today. “The Government of the USSR expresses the hope that the Governments of other States, including those of the great Powers, Will for their part take a11 steps to extinguish the military conflagration in the Near East and restore peace. 56. The cesse-fire, which is the fïrst step, should be immediately followed by the most intensive efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Yesterday my Government defined its position in the light of the events as follows: “The United Nations should fulfil its direct obligations, namely, condemn Israel’s actions and take the necessary steps forthwith to restore peace in the Near East. “The Soviet Government reserves the right to carry out a11 the measures which the circumstances require.” 50. The resolution unanimously adopted by the Security Council calling for an immediate cesse-fire and a cessation Of military activities, represents the minimum which the 52. The Soviet Union delegation forthrightly condemns Israel’s aggression and considers it the duty of the Security Council to adopt a decision calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the aggressor’s troops behind the armistice line.

In our previous intervention during this debate on the grave situation in the Middle East, we stated [1343rd meeting/ that our immediate task was to use every means at our disposa1 to maintain international peace and security. We felt that the problems of the moment were SO great that we should not seek final solutions then and there, but that we should confine our efforts to avoiding an outbreak of fighting. In our favour, to that end, was the fact that the parties had not yet begun hostilities. Unfortunately, although the pause requested by the Secretary-General did last for several days, it was not long enough to calm emotions, and yesterday saw the outbreak of fighting on a larger scale. What we must do now, therefore, is not maintain peace but re-establish it. “We must calmly and composedly weigh the causes of the conflict and claims of the parties; we must maintain impartial and independent judgement; we must above all weigh the equity of our statements, and we must do SO in order the more effectively to serve the higher interests of peace and world order as well as the permanent legitimate interests of the Argentine Republic ,” 58. On behalf of my delegation, 1 should like, Mr. President, to emphasize our appreciation for your patient and fruitful efforts to ensure the unanimous adoption of this resolution. And before concluding, I should like to express my condolences to the delegations of India and Brazil for the losses suffered by their contingents in UNEF on their peace mission in Gaza. 63. We have therefore weIcomed the agreed text and we are glad to have been able to vote for it. We earnestly hope that a11 parties, a11 Member States, and especially the permanent members, wiI1 now exercise a11 their influence to bring this fighting to an end. We would now expect that the parties Will promptly comply with the cal1 for a cesse-fire which the Council has now adopted.

The calamity which all of us feared and which most of us have tried to prevent is upon us. The Secretary-General has been proved a11 too right in his assessment that the situation in the Middle East was more menacing than at any time since the fall of 19.56. 64. We note that the resolution is only a fïrst step. We believe that the Council must take advantage of the opportunity which this unanimously agreed resolution represents, to deal effectively and in an equitable rnanner with the fundamental problems which underlie the maintenance of peace and security in the area. We cannot and we must not wait for another ten years, for another crisis’ which Will result again in fighting and blood-letting and bring us a11 once more to the edge of catastrophe. 60. When 1 first intervened in this series of meetings on 24 May /1341st meeting], 1 had just joined with you, Mr. President, in requesting the inscription of an item on the agenda of the Council regarding the extremely grave situation menacing peace and security in the Middle East. 1 proposed at that time that the Council should put its weight collectively behind the efforts of the Secretary- General by asking that no Member of the United Nations take any action which would worsen the situation. Notwithstanding the conscientious efforts made, in particular by you, Mr. President, consultations among the members failed to produce that clear endorsement of the Secretary- GeneraI’s appeal for a breathing spell which most members of this Council had in one form or another in fact supported and to which my colleague from Argentina has just alluded. 1 also agree with my friend, the representative of Ethiopia, that much valuable time was lost which today’s decision has helped to make up for-due in no small tneasure, Mr. President, to your patient and effective leadership.

From the time the Council convened to consider the outbreak of fighting in the Middle East, my delegation, as members of the Council are aware, has engaged in a number of talks and consultations with a view to arriving at a text which might prove acceptable to a substantial majority of the Council and thereby enable this body to take effective action to hall the hostilities and to restore peace in the area. The main purpose of our efforts was to cal1 upon ail Governments concerned, as a first step, to put into effect an immediate cesse-fire, to be followed by other measures conducive to the peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel situation. In SO doing, we were guided by the sole concern to take a stand which would meet the urgent demands the open conflict in the Middle East had placed upon the Security Cou&. An immediate cesse-fire was envisaged by the Brazilian delegation as a first but essential step towards re-establishing peace and checking the threat it presented to world peace and security. 61. But events did,overtake us and the Council had to turn its hand, on an urgent and emergency basis, to the question of the cessation of hostilities and steps which codd restore calm in the area. In the view of my delegation it Will not serve the interests of the Security Council or of peace in the Middle East to fall into the temptation of recriminations at this stage or of attampts to assess the rights and the wrongs. We are on the threshold only of an understanding of the awesome facts. But one thing is clear. There is heavy fïghting in the Middle East; both Israel and Arab forces are actively participating in it and there is grave danger of the war spreading. And at this point 1 wish to associate myself with the remarks made by several of my colleagues and to express the sympathies of the Canadian Government at the tragic casualties sustained by the Indian and Brazilian contingents in the United Nations Emergency Force in the course of duty on behalf of the United Nations. 66. For the above reasons, my delegation was able to support the draft resolution that has just been adopted. We are happy to note that the consultations among members of the Council, conducted under your able guidance, Mr. President, although they were strenuous and painstaking, have finally resulted in an agreement on the course of action upon which we should embark at this hour. My delegation gave its full support to the draft resolution introduced by our President, and we hope that it Will bring about an end to the hostilities in the Middle East and be an effective and constructive step towards restoring peace to a11 nations involved in the fighting, nations to which Brazil is tied by traditional links of esteem and friendship. 62. The Canadian delegation believes that the Councjl has now properly exercised its responsibilities in calling upon all the parties concerned to cesse fire immediately. As the Prime Minister of Canada said yesterday: “There is only 67. j It was with deep grief that my delegation received this very morning confirmation from our Government that a soldier of the Brazilian contingent in the United Nations 68. May 1 take this opportunity to extend our heartfelt sympathy to the Indian delegation for the casualties suffered by the Indian contingent in UNEF, and to thank my colleagues from Ethiopia, the United Kingdom, Argentina and Canada for their expressions of sympathy to my delegation.

On two separate occasions within the past two weeks, 1 have expressed the very grave concern of my Government regarding the situation in the Near East, and urged the Governments concerned to exercise maximum restraint, scrupulously avoiding any action of any kind which might lead to a further deterioration of the then already very grave situation, It was most unfortunate that, despite our clearly expressed grave anxiety, the situation prevailing in the area during recent weeks has resulted in very serious and widespread armed conflict. 70. There cari be no doubt whatsoever that immediate cesse-fire orders should be issued by the Governments concerned to a11 their military forces and that the Governments concerned, with the help of the Security Council, should promptly and fully explore a11 possible ways and means of resolving the questions at issue between them, strictly by peaceful means only. My delegation, therefore, was gratified that the draft resolution [S/7935] whi& appealed for measures to be taken by the Governments concerned, as a first step, for an immediate cesse-fire and for the cessation of a11 military activities in the area, was adopted unanimously. 71. May 1 join the other members of the Council in conveying, through their respective representatives, my delegation’s profound condolences to the Governments and people of India and Brazil and to the families of those who have given their lives in the service of UNEF and who have, by their sacrifice, demonstrated their devotion to the cause of peace and security to which our Organization is dedicated.

The delegation of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria voted in favour of the draft resolution calling for an immediate cesse-fire. The very terms of the draft text indicate that it is only a first step towards halting the brutal aggression launched by extremist circles in Israel against the United Arab Republic, the Syrian Arab Republic and Jordan. 73. In adopting this draft resolution the Security Council cannot fail to recognize that further aggression was perpetrated by Israel extremists against the United Arab Republit and the other Arab States. By this aggression, plotted at the instigation of certain Western imperialistic circleswhich some have preferred not to mention-they sought to “The Bulgarian people and their Government follow’ with anxiety the development of events in the Near East- They condemn Israel aggression against the United Arab Republic and a11 other Arab countries and voice their fuu solidarity with the Arab peoples who are struggling to beat off aggression and for the defence of their freedorn and independence against the actions of imperialism and neo-colonialism. The Government of the People’s Republit of Bulgaria and. the Bulgarian people join in the appeal of peace-loving nations for an immediate end to Israel aggression and for a withdrawal of Israel troops behind the armistice line. The Bulgarian Government believes that the Security Council should take immediate steps to condemn and stop Israel’s aggressive action and to restore peace in the Near East.” The aggression launched by Israel against the United Arab - Republic and the other Arab countries is merely the culmination of the policy which extremist circles in IsraeI have been following for a very long time, 75. This policy was reflected in the fact that despite the urgent appeals addressed to it, the Government of Israel did not see fit to give an assurance to the Secretary-General, or the Security Council or world public opinion, that it would not initiate an armed offensive against any Arab country. The fact that the attack on the United Arab Republic was launched at a time when it had been announced that the Government of that country had accepted President Johnson’s invitation and was sending one of its Vice-Presidents to discuss the situation shows that the Israel Government was not interested in a political solution but was seeking to impose a new fait accompli, as it had done in the past. Israel’s open and premeditated aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan is one of the most brutal episodes resulting from imperialistic policy in the Middle East. The Secretary-General5 reports and the subsequent course of events have confirmed that it was carried out against the Arab countries along broad lines. 76. Viewing this resolution as a first step, the delegation of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria Will make it its duty to insist, as far as lies within its power, that the Security Council take all necessary steps to condemn IsraeI’s aggression against the Arab countries and to effect the prompt withdrawal of the aggressor behind the armistice demarcation line, as specifïed in the Bulgarian Government’s statement. 77. The Bulgarian delegation maintains that the Securlty Council should continue to deal with this question with a view to taking the necessary steps to make further aggression impossible on the part of imperialist circles and their agents in the Middle East. This is an urgent duty which the Council should carry out forthwith. 78. On behalf of the delegation of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, 1 should like to convey to the Indian and

My dehsgation would like, at the outset, to pay its tribute of mourning for the victims of the surprise attack recently directed against the United Arab Republic. It also mourns the death of Indian and Brazilian citizens who laid down their lives in the service of the United Nations. We wish to convey to the people and to the Governments of India and Brazil, through the intermediary of the distinguished representatives of those countries here present, our heartfelt condolences and those of our Govemment on the loss they have suffered through the death of their countrymen who have fallen in the service of the United Nations and the cause of peace. 80. My delegation has already had repeated occasion not only to express its devotion to peace, but also to prove it. And in this Council, which we continue to regard as the supreme peace-keeping body, it would be unthinkable for any Member to refuse to support an appeal for peace. My delegation accordingly voted, Mr. President, in favour of your appeal. We nevertheless wish to,‘state, first, that we condemn Israel’s aggression of Monday, 5 June 1967, and secondly, that our Government fully supports the United Arab Republic and the other Arab peoples in their just and high-principled struggle for their sovereignty and their legitimate rights. 88. It is in the spirit of what my Prime Minister said, which is in accord with our consistent policy of peace, that we welcome the unanimous decision just taken by this Council ordering an immediate cesse-fire in the Middle East. We note that the resolution states clearly and unambiguously that the cesse-fire is only a Brst step, although a most important fïrst step. It is well known that my delegation, among others, wouId bave preferred a resolution which called upon the Govemments concemed for a withdrawal of armed forces to positions held by them prier to the outbreak of hostilities, that is as on 4 June 1967, along with the cesse-fire. Such a linking of the cesse-fire with a withdrawal would be in accordance with the practice which this Council has evolved in the past. This practice is obviously based upon the sound principle that the aggressor should not be permitted by the international community to enjoy the fruits of aggression. This is also a most important tenet of international law and practice indeed, and is ,the only basis on which lasting peace can’be built in the troubled area of the Iciiddle East. 81. We therefore trust that the Security Council Will not consider its task completed with this appeal, which is no more than the unanimous but simple expression of the Council members’ desire and Will for peace. We trust that this step Will be followed by a searching study of the whole problem which has SO long featured in our agenda; for unless further action is taken, we shah merely have added a few more lines on another sheet of paper under the illusion of having solved a problem that will soon be confronting us again at the next crossroads.

My delegation heartily welcomes the resolution. It is our sincere conviction that in a conflict such as the one going on in the Middle East, there cari be no victors. In the present circumstances, the first order of business for the Security CounciI is obviously to arrange for a cesse-fïre. There are, of course, deep-rooted and complex problems still awaiting solution. 1 hope that with the cesse-fire those problems, difficult as they are, will eventualIy be resolved. 89. My delegation is of the opinion that the Council should take up on an urgent bas& the question of withdrawal. 83. 1 further hope that the Council Will be able to follow up this initial step by other effective means to seek the just and peaceful solution of the conditions that underlie the present conflict. For the situation we are now confronted with is not a crisis for the Middle East alone, but a supreme test for the United Nations: whether this Organization is capable of discharging the responsibilities and fulfilling the purposes for which it was created. 90. May 1 take this opportunity, Mr. President, to express our appreciàtion of the admirable manner in which you conducted the consultations with ail delegations, and of your untiring efforts to bring about a unanimous decision by the Council. 84. The fact that the Council, in spite of a timely warning by the Secretary-General, had to wait for the actual 9 1. 1 should like now to refer to another tragic aspect of ^ the conflict in the Middle East. Yesterday we were shocked . 85. May 1 join with all previous speakers in appealing to the parties concerned to comply with the terms of the resolution, which has behind it the support of aIl members of the Council and, 1 believe, of a11 peace-loving peoples throughout the world.

1 should like to make a very brief explanation of my delegation’s vote. 87. Speaking in Parliament in New Delhi earlier today, my Prime Minister said: “The world today faces a disastrous war in West Asia. The armed forces of Israel and those of the United Arab Republic and other Arab countries are locked in combat and the situation becomes graver by the hour. If not stopped, this war is likely to expand into a much wider one, drawing into its vortex other countries and developing, perhaps, into a world war. “World peace is in grave peril. It is our solemn duty to help in the restoration of peace in the present perilous situation, It is the bounden duty of a11 countries, large and small, to work towards this end.” 92. We must ask for an unqualified guarantee for the safety and security of those portions and elements of the Emergency Force which continue to be in the area where for ten long years they laboured SO hard and SO selflessly as keepers of the peace. In this context, we have noted with appreciation, from the Secretary-General’s report of 5 June, that he has already addressed a forma1 note of protest to tlle Government of Israel regarding what he himself has characterized as the “tragic and unnecessary loss of lifc among Force personnel” (5/7930, para. 111. We note also that the Secretary-General has asked the Israel authorities “to take urgent measures to ensure that there is no recurrence of such incidents” (ibid./. 93. The Secretary-General’s report makes it clear-clearer than ever-that the loss of life wantonly caused by the Israel armed forces was unnecessary, cruel and tragic. 94. May I be permitted to quote from the statement made earlier this morning by my Prime Minister in our Parliament in New Delhi: “Honourable Members have no doubt learned with deep rcsentment of the wanton Israel attack and subsequent strafing by Israel aircraft, resulting in the death and injury of a number of personnel of the Indian UNEF contingent in Gaza. These attacks appeared deliberate and without provocation, in spite of clear and unmistakabie United Nations markings and identification of our contingent. 1 have addressed a message to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on this subject expressing our grief and indignation at these incidents and 1 have asked for effective steps to be taken to ensure their safety and early evacuation from the area of hostilities. “There cari be no justification for Israel armed forces to have attacked our contingent. whose whereabouts, identification, markings and intention to withdraw were clearly known to th; Israel authorities. 1 am sure the House will unreservedly condemn this cowardly attack on our men who have been sentinels of peace in West Asia.” 95. 1 must thank the Secretary-General for the expression of his deep regret at the heavy casualties which the Indian contingent has suffered. As he rightly points out, they had no means of defending themselves. I shall, of course, transmit to the Government of India and to the families concerned his deep condolences and sympathies. 96. May 1 also express my appreciation for the efforts he is making to arrive at an arrangement for the earliest possible repatriation of the Indian contingent.

There are no more representatives who wish to explain their votes, and 1 should like now, in the name of DENMARK, to say a few words. Since this is meant to be an explanation of vote, 1 cari indeed be brief, In Denmark we believe in the peaceful settlement of disputes. As a member of the Security Council, we feel it our obligation to contribute to the realization of the Council’s primary purpose: the maintenance of international peace and security. 99. We are these days witnessing a tragedy. A war has broken out, with death and cruel consequences for numerous people anrl families. As early as yesterday morning, 1 advocated a cal1 for a cesse-fire, to concentrate on first things first. 100. The Danish Government is happy that it has now proved possible as a first step to adopt unanimously a resolution calling for a cesse-fire. 101. 1 do not find it necessary to give any further explanation of my vote for this call, for which 1 imagine the whole world has been waiting. 102, Speaking now as PRESIDENT, 1 should like to say that a number of representatives have indicated that they wish to make statements at this stage. The first speaker on my list is the Foreign Minister of Iraq, whom 1 invite to take a seat at the Council table and to make a statement. 103. Mr. PACHACHI ‘(Iraq): 1 wish to make a brief statement following the Council’s adoption of its resolution on this question. 104. Mr. President, you will recall that less than a week ago, whan 1 had the privilege of addressing the Security Council, 1 stated [1345th meeting/ that while the Arab States had indicated to the Secretary-General, and had reaffirmed here, that they would not initiate any offensive action against Israel, no such assurance had been given by the Israel Government. 1 also pcinted out that it was the duty of the Security Cour& to determine from where the threat to peace came and to take necessary action to prevent the one party which declared its intention to go to war from carrying out its threat. Efforts were exerted by ail members of the Council and by many other Member States of the Unittd Nations, including Iraq, to find a basis for the breathing spell which the Secretary-General proposed SO that the Council would be in a position to undertake a discussion of the problem with a view to finding solutions that would prevent the outbreak of hostilities. While those efforts were going on, Israel initiated offensive action against the United Arab Republic and other Arab States. 105. 1 do not need to prove who initiated the offensive action in this war. The Secretary-General? report of 26 106. What makes this particularly serious is that this war was initiated while the Council was seized of the problem and while talks and negotiations and efforts were being undertaken by a11 the members of the Council to find a peaceful solution. 113, Many countries of the world have corne to the support of the Arab nations. In this Council several members have indeed stated their support for us. But 1 must say that 1 am a little puzzled. While they concede that an act of aggression was committed against Arab countries, they would still go along with a resolution that does not in any way ask that this responsibility be pinned down, or at least that those who committed the act of aggression be asked to give up the fruit of their aggression. 107. It would have been natural, indeed necessary, for the Council, before ordering or recommending a cesse-fire to determine the responsibility for the breach of peace and the act of aggression which had been committed. That is what this Council is for. When a clear breach of the peace and a clear premeditated act of aggression is committed, is it right for the Council merely to satisfy itsclf with a cesse-fire resolution, without making even an effort to determine the responsibility for the outbreak of hostilities? 114. Mr. President, 1 would be dishonest with you if 1 did not say that the meaning of this Will not be lost upon the Arab people. In this grave and solemn hour, you may be sure that our people, who have been led into this war against their Will in order to defend their homeland against Israel aggression, Will definitely reconsider their position. It is not up to us-Governments corne and go-but you may be. sure that the people Will never tolerate this abject surrender to Israel. 108. 1 have had the privilege of working with many of the representatives around this table as the representative of my country at the United Nations. 1 am honoured by the fact that 1 consider many of you as my friends. Therefore, you must excuse me if 1 state my views honestly and clearly. 1 owe it to myself as a rpan and as an Arab to state my views clearly. If 1 did not do that, 1 would be violating my conscience as a human being and my national duty as an Arab. 11.5. The PRESIDENT: 1 now give the floor to the representative of the United States in exercise of his right of reply . 109. The cesse-fïre resolution which the Council adopted today is a complete surrender to Israel. 1 do not tare what anybody says. That is a fact and it is very well known. For two days there have been negotiations to see whether a cesse-fire resolution would be adopted that would be accompanied by a cal1 for the withdrawal of forces back to the point from which hostilities started. That was not done because of the fact that certain States, and 1 mention the United States of America in particular, refused to go along with it. It refused to go along with it for the very simple reason that Israel refused to go along with it. And why did Israel refuse? Was it not in order to be able to keep control of territories which it had been able to occupy through its treacherous and surprise attack on the Arab countries while the Council was discussing this problem?

1 am impelled to exercise this right of reply to the statement just made by the Foreign Minister of Iraq, who is a man well known to a11 of us and who deservedly enjoys a very great and eminent reputation here at the United Nations. Nevertheless, I must reject as completely unfounded what he has just said. And 1 should like to do that by reference to the record, which is well known to evcry member of this Council. 117. The United States took the lead in supporting the proposa1 of other countries on this Council to bring this matter before the Council, SO that in the exercise of its responsibilities the Council could take the action necessary to prevent any-and 1 emphasize “any’‘--warlike action in the Middle East. Our record in this respect is a clear and plain record. We did what we did, 1 should like to recall, despite the fact that when we joined in this effort, there were members of the Council who took the position that we were attempting to drarnatize the situation, that everything was a11 right, that it was not necessary for the Council to take any action, that things were tranquil, that a11 we had to do was sit by and let events happen. 110. It pains me to say that 1 personally went SO far as to have talks with the President of the United States and with the Secretary of State of the United States about the problem and about what should be done in order that the Council might adopt a resolution that would make it possible to have the breathing spell which the Secretary- General proposed. Little did 1 know-1 repeat, little did 1 know-that while these talks were going on, massive assistance was being given to Israel, SO that it was able to launch its treacherous attack against our people. 118. We had a great Governor of this State of New York, Governor Al Smith, and his very favourite expression was: “Let us look at the record”. Now 1 shall recall the record, since our attitude is brought into question. 111. It is quite obvious that Israel would not have dared to defy world public opinion and the Council had it not “The United States strongly supports the efforts of the Secretary-General on behalf of the United Nations to maintain peace in the Middle East. We share bis concern about the situation as expressed in his recent statements of Il May and 13 May, and are distressed over reports of increased tension and military preparation. “Diplomatie efforts on the part of my Govemment in support of the Secretary-General? appeals are now under way and we hope the response to his efforts Will be positive.” May 1 interject at this point that in our diplomatie efforts 124. On 23 May 1 made the following statement here in we went to a11 important capitals, including those of a11 the New York: . . .- ^ countnes concerned, with a fervent plea for restraint in the situation, a plea to avoid a11 threats and acts of force. 120. On 18 May-and we were fairly lonely at that tirne; there were only a few others with us-1 made a statement on behalf of my Government after visiting the Secretary General and hearing at first hand a report from him onhis concerns, which he had elaborated in his reports of 11 May and 13 May. 1 should like to read to the Council what 1 said publicly on that occasion: “The Secretary-General and 1 reviewed the present situation in the Middle East. I expressed the deep concern of the United States over reports of increased tension and military movements in the area.” 121. On the same day 1 met with the Press here at the United Nations, after meeting with the Secretary-General, and this is what 1 said: “We are concerned over reports of increased tension and military movements in the area and we would hope very much that the situation would be stabilized. 1 know of no other subject at the moment that is of greater concern.” 122. On 19 May 1 again made a statement of a public nature, and 1 now repeat that statement: “The United States fully shares the serious misgivings expressed by the Secretary-General in his report of 18 May fA/6669/’ about the effect of the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force in the present tense situation in the Middle East and his expression of belief that UNEF has been an important factor in maintaining relative quiet in the area. We deeply regret the developrnents that are taking place. “In the light of today’s developments we are giving urgent consideration in consultation with others to the 2 Same text as A/6730; see OfficM Records of the General Assembly, Fifth Emergence Special Session, Annexes, agenda item 5. “In the light of the extreme gravity of the current situation in the Middle East and the state of tension prevailing there, the United States greatly welcomes the decision of the Secretary-General to travel to that area in an effort to assure peace. “We ‘note with great concern the Secretary-General? report today to the Security Council [S/7896] warning that the situation is becoming more menacing than at any time since the fa11 of 1956. We share that concern.” “We have been consulting intensively with other members over the last several days, since the crisis first arose, to determine in what way the Security Council could best contribute to the cause of peace in the area. We entirely agree that the time has now corne, in the light of the gravity of the circumstances, for the Security Council to discharge its primary responsibility under the Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.” 125. Then we had a meeting of the Security Council. Some members here resisted a meeting because they said that the Secretary-General was on his mission. We had said that we did not want to do anything in any way to prejudice the result of the Secretary-General’s mission; nevertheless, in the light of the increased tension in the area, we supported the effort made by Canada and Denmark to cal1 a meeting to support the efforts of the Secretary-General, and at that meeting 1 said the following on behalf of my Government: “It has been said, for example, that one of the possibly adverse effects of a discussion at this time would be to dramatize a situation better left quiet. But this Council would be burying its head in the sand if it refused to recognize the threat to peace implicit in the developments which have occurred since the Secretary-General left New York two days ago. “It is precisely because of these developments, not known to him or to any member of the Council, that we have been called here today urgently to consider what the Council ought to do in the discharge of its responsibility to further his efforts-and not to impede them. “This Council meeting cannot dramatize a situation which at this moment is at the centre of the stage pf world concern. It cari, however, play a role, as we hope, in drawing the curtain on a tragedy which potentially threatens the peace and well-being of ail the people in the area and, indeed, of a11 mankind.” (1341s meeting, paras. 49-51.1 132. The picture of a country egging someone on is scarcely compatible with our record of urging the Council to take action which we at a11 times supported and have supported today; that is to urge all parties-I emphasize “all parties”-to refrain from force and to follow the Charter prescription to settle disputes by peaceful means. More than that, any allegation that the United States has given in these circumstances “massive assistance to Israel”-and 1 quote the Foreign Minister of Iraq-is completely and entirely without foundation. What we have done is to urge restraint. Every communication, public and private, has been directed to that end. 1 added: “ . . . since the Secretary-General made his reportindeed, in the two days since he departed for Cairoconditions in the area have taken a still more menacing turn . , . . This has led us to the belief that the Council, in the exercise of its responsibilities, should meet without delay and take steps to relieve tension in the area. L‘ . . . 133. 1 regret very much that the Council did not heed our advice. Under the Charter we did not have to wait, as we pointed out in our presentation to the Council, until a breach of the peace had occurred. The Charter uses the words “threats to the peace”. It was our considered judgernent, based on events which were reported by the Secretary-General, that the Council should exercise its collective judgement, collective responsibility, collective power, in the interest of restraining a11 of the parties and bringing about a peaceful composition of the situation and averting the tragedy of war. “Great Powers have bath interests and responsibihties in this matter-and the greater the Power the greater the responsibility.“/Ibid., paras. 5 and 13.J 127. On 29 May 1 said this in the Council: “This grave appeal from the Secretary-General has lost none of its relevance”-this was after the return of the Secretary-General-“since his report was issued. , . . Incidents have occur-red . . . Thus, the dangers in these three areas, which the Secretary-General has rightly identified as the most sensitive of all, remain. at their height. Passions, regrettably, are stiI1 high and the need for utmost restraint on a11 sides has in no way abated.” f 1343rd meeting, para. 18.1 134. That is the record of the attitude of my countiy in this matter. It is a record not of partisanship, but of so,ber responsibility. It is a record of attempting to work through the United Nations, the organ that we created for this purpose. It is a record also of exerting a11 diplomatie means at the disposal of my country to avert what has occurred in the last few days. 128, On 30 May in this Council 1 said that the situation “is by common recognition very tense, very grave, very serious and menacing to the cause of world peace and security” [13#4th meeting, para. 1081. 135. Therefore, 1 cannot accept the concept that the United States, which took the lead even to the extent of presenting a draft resolution to the Council for a breathing spell, is in any way to be charged with having fomented and encouraged anything that occurred. It is just inconsistent with the facts, which are a matter of public record, as well as a matter of private record, known to a11 the Arab States involved in this conffict, as weIl as to Israel. For those were widespread communications designed to do by diplomatie means everything that we could do to bring restraint into what the Secretary-General had correctly pointed out was the most grave and menacing situation in the Middle East that we had faced since the Suez crisis. 129. On 31 May-and a11 the events to which 1 am referring transpired before the outbreak of hostilities-1 said: “The events since then bave certainly underscored the urgency which the Secretary-General expressed to us last Friday in his report.” [1345th meeting, para. 34. J 130. Then on 3 June 1 said this: “The Secretary-General, in this grave situation, has made an appeal for restraint to all concerned. The United States is supporting this appeal.” (1346th meeting, para. 229.J 131. 1 am sorry to burden the Council with this recital of the position of our Government, but 1 want to make one thing crystal clear. Our position is not compatible with the statement that has been made that the United States in any way contributed to the cause of tension in the area. On the contrary, the United States, conscious of what the Secretary-General called to our attention, has devoted every means at the disposaI of the Government, public and private, in the interest of restraint in the area. We have gone 136. 1 only regret-and I say this without recriminationthat our appeals, diplomatically and to this CounciI, were not heeded. 1 only regret that there were members of this Council who took the position that we were artificially dramatizing a situation which already at that time was the most dramatic on the world scene and which today has resulted in the catastrophe of which we warned. In ail friendship 1 say this to those who have spoken in that way: It is not good to take a stand which attributes to our 138. 1 would not like by any omission to indicate that we do not share, with the greatest regret and sorrow, the views of my colleagues about the deaths of members of the Indian and Brazilian contingents of the United Nations Emergency Force in the service of the United Nations. We believe in peace-keeping. We think those brave soldiers paid the supreme sacrifice for their dedication to the United Nations. We express this regret now, and my Government at the highest levels is expressing .its regrets to the Heads of State. We think that this is a regrettable and sorrowful chapter in the history of the United Nations. We have no hesitancy in condemning those responsible. We think that the lives of those soldiers are the first priority for a11 men who believe in the great peace-keeping effort of the United Nations. 139. My country desires, as 1 have said, good relations with ah. We try to have good relations with all. Good relations are not going to be the product of statements which are not founded upon fact. Indeed, 1, in this Council, conscious of some documents that had been circulated, categorically stated on the highest authority of my Govemment that if there was any doubt about the position of the United States with respect to any régime, whatever its ideology, in the Middle East, 1 wanted to lay that doubt to rest. The passage 1 read today-and have read three times-that we respect the territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the Middle East, stands. It has been our consistent policy. We believe in it. We believe in it in a spirit of friendship for a11 of the countries concerned. That is our position. That remains our position. It has not been changed by anything that has been said, because it represents the fundamental policy of my country. 140. Finally, when the historical record of this period is written, the United States Will yield to no one in what it has done through private channels to urge that everyone concerned should exercise restraint in this situation, We have worked day and night in the Council and outside the Council. We have accepted every suggestion made by members of the Council to try to compose this situation. 1 repeat the offer 1 made earlier-and 1 know of no similar offer that has been made in the history of the United Nations-t0 admit on naval vessels of the United States, in conditions of intimacy and confidence, representatives of the United Nations and to give them complete access to everything needed to verify the peaceful activities of the United States in this situation. 143. Two days ago Israel’s condition caused much concem across the humane and friendly world. Israel had reached a sombre hour. Let me try to evoke the point at which our fortunes stood. 144. An army, greater than any force ever assembled in history in Sir-rai, had massed against Israel’s southem frontier. Egypt had dismissed the United Nations forces which symbolized the international interest in the maintenance of peace in our region. Nasser had provocatively brought five infantry divisions and two armoured divisions up to our very gates; 80,000 men and 900 tanks were poised to move. 145. A special striking force, comprising an armoured division with at least 200 tanks, was concentrated against Eclat at the Negev’s southern tip. Here was a clear design to tut the southern Negev off from the main body of our State. For Egypt had openly proclaimed that Eclat did not form part of Israel and had predicted that Israel itself would soon expire. The proclamation was empty; the prediction now lies in ruin. While the main brunt of the hostile threat was focussed on the southern front, an alarming plan of encirclement was under way. With Egypt’s initiative and guidance, Israel was already being strangled in its maritime approaches to the whole eastem half of tbe world. For sixteen years, Israel had been illicitly denied passage in the Suez Canal, despite the Security Council’s decision of 1 September 1951 (resolution 95 (1951)j. And now the creative enterprise of ten patient years which had opened an international route across the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba had been suddenly and arbitrarily choked. Israel was and is breathing with only a single lung, 146. Jordan had been intimidated, against its better interest, into joining a defence pact. It is nota defence pact at all: it is an aggressive pact, of which 1 saw the consequences with my own eyes yesterday in the shells falling upon institutions of health and culture in the City of Jerusalem. Every house and street in Jerusalem now came into the range of fire as a result of Jordan’s adherence to this pact; SO also did the crowded and pathetically narrow coastal strip in which SO much of Israel’s life and population is concentrated. 147. Iraqi troops reinforced Jordanian units in areas immediately facing vital and vulnerable Israel communication centres. Expeditionary forces from Algeria and Kuwait had reached Egyptian territory. Nearly a11 the Egyptian forces which had been attempting the conquest of the Yemen had been transferred to the coming assault upon Israel. Syrian units, including artillery, overlooked thc Israel villages in the Jordan Valley. Terrorist troops came regularly into our territory to kill, plunder and set off explosions; the most recent occasion was five days ago. 149. We were buoyed up by an unforgettable surge of public sympathy across the world. The friendly Governments expressed the rather ominous hope that Israel would manage to live, but the dominant theme of our condition was danger and solitude. 150. Now there could be no doubt about what was intended for us. With my very ears 1 heard President Nasser’s speech on 26 May. He said: “We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This Will be total war. Our basic aim Will be to destroy Israel.” 15 1. On 2 June, the Egyptian Commander in Sinai, General Mortagi, published his order of the day, calling on his troops to wage a war of destruction against Israel. Here, then, was a systematic, overt, proclaimed design at politicide, the murder of a State. 152. The policy, the arms, the men had a11 been brought together, and the State thus threatened with collective assault was itself the last sanctuary of people which had seen six million of its sons exterminated by a more powerfd dictator two decades before. 153. The question then widely asked in Israel and across the world was whether we had not already gone beyond the utmost point of danger. Was there any precedent in world history, for example, for a nation passively to suffer the blockade of its only southern port, involving nearly all its vital fuel, when such acts of war, legally and internationally, have always invited resistance? This was a most unusual patience. It existed because we had acceded to the suggestion of some of the maritime States that we give them scope to concert their efforts in order to find an international solution which would ensure the maintenance of free passage in the Gulf of Aqaba for ships of a11 nations and of a11 flags. 154. As we pursued this avenue of international solution, we wished the world to have no doubt about our readiness to exhaust every prospect, however fragile, of a diplomatie solution-and some of the prospects that were suggested were very fragile indeed. 15.5. But as time went on, there was no doubt that our margin of general security was becoming smaller and smaller. Thus, on the morning of 5 June, when Egyptian forces engaged us by air and land, bombarding the villages of Kissufim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha we knew that OU~ limit of safety had been reached, and perhaps passed. In accordance with its inherent right of self-defence as formulated in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Israel responded defensively in full strength. Never in the history of nations has armed force been used in a more righteous or compelling cause. 156. Even when engaged with Egyptian forces, we still hoped to contain the conflict. Egypt was overtly bent on ‘ ‘We shall not attack any country unless it opens war on us. Even now, when the mortars speak, we have not given up our quest for peace. We strive to repel all menace of terrorism and any danger of aggression to ensure our security and our legitimate rights.” 157. In accordance with this same policy of attempting to contain the conflict, yesterday 1 invited General Bull, the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization, to inform the heads of the Jordanian State that Israel had no desire to expand the conflict beyond the unfortunate dimensions that it had already assumed and that if Israel were not attacked on the Jordan side, it would not attack and would act only in self-defence. It reached my ears that this message had been duly and faithfully conveyed and received. Nevertheless, Jordan decided to join the Egyptian posture against Israel and opened artillery attacks across the whole long frontier, including Jerusalem, Those attacks are still in progress. 158. TO the appeal of Prime Minister Eshkol to avoid any further extension of the conflict, Syria answered at 12.25 yesterday morning by bombing Megiddo from the air and bombing Deganya at 12.40 with artillery fire and kibbutz Ein Hammifrats. and Koordani with long-range guns. But Jordan embarked on a much more total assault by artillery and aircraft along the entire front, with special emphasis on Jerusalem, to whose dangerous and noble ordeal yesterday 1 corne to bear persona1 witness. 159. There has been bombing of houses; there has been a bit on the great new National Museum of Art; there has been a hit on the University and on Shaare Tsedek, the fïrst hospital evcr to have been established outside the ancient walls. 1s this not an act of vandalism that deserves the condemnation of ail mankind? And in the Knesset Build. ing, whose construction had been movingly celebrated by the entire democratic world ten months ago, the Israel Cabinet and Parliament met under heavy gunfire, whose echoes mingled at the end of our meeting with Hatikvah, the anthem of hope. 160. Thus throughout the day and night of 5 June, the Jordan which we had expressly invited to abstain from needless slaughter became, to our surprise, and .still remains, the most intense of a11 the belligerents; and death and injury, as SO often in history, stalk Jerusalem’s streets. 161. When the approaching Egyptian aircraft appeared on our radar screens, soon to be followed by artillery attacks on our villages near the Gaza Strip, 1 instructed Mr. Rafael to inform the Secupty Council, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. 1 know that that involved arousing you, Mr. President, at a most uncongenia1 hour of the night, but we felt that the Security Council should be most urgently seized. 162. 1 should,, however, be less than frank if 1 were to conceal the fact that the Government and people of Israel 163. It is not, 1 think, a question of sovereignty that is here involved. The United Nations has a right to ask that when it assumes a function, the termination of that function shall not take place in conditions that would lead to anti-charter situations. 1 do not raise this point in order to linger upon that which is past, but because of Israel’s general attitude to the peace-keeping functions of this Organization. And 1 confess that my own attitude and those of my colleagues and of my fellow citizens to the peace-keeping functions of the United Nations have been traumatically affected by this experience. 164. The United Nations Emergency Force rendered distinguished service. Nothing became it less than the manner of its departure. Ail gratitude and appreciation is owed to the individuat who sustained its action. And if in the course of the recent combats United Nations personnel have fallen dead or wounded-as they have-then 1 join my voice in an expression of the most sincere regret. 165. The problem of the future role of a United Nations presence in conflicts such as these is being much debated. But we must ask ourselves a question that has arisen as a result of this experience. People in our country and in many countries ask: what is the use of a United Nations presence if it is in effect an umbrella which is taken away as soon as it begins to rain ? Surely, then, future arrangements for peace-keeping must depend more on the agreement and the implementation of the parties themselves than on machinery which is totally at the mercy of the host country, SO totaIly at its mercy as to be the instrument of its policies, whatever those policies may be. 166. We have lived through three dramatic weeks. Those weeks, 1 think, have brought into clear view the main elements of tension and also the chief promise of relaxed tension in the future. The first link in the cabin was the series of sabotage acts emanating from Syria. In October of 1966, the Security Council was already seized of this problem, and a majority of its member States found it possible and necessary to draw attention to the Syrian Government’s responsibility for altering chat situation. Scarcely a day passed without a mine, a bomb, a handgrenade or a mortar exploding on Israel’s soil, sometimes with Iethal or crippling effects, always with an unsettling psychological influence. In general, fourteen or fifteen such incidents would accumulate before a response was considered necessary, and this ceaseless accumulation of 167. But then there came a graver source of tension in mid-May, when abnormal troop concentrations were observed in the Sinai Peninsula. For the ten years of relative stability beginning with March 1957 and ending with May 1967, the Sinai Desert had been free of Egyptian troops. In other words, a natural geographic barrier, a largely uninhabited space, separated the main forces of the two sides. It is true that in terms of sovereignty and law, any State has a right to put its armies in any part of its territory that it chooses. This, however, is not a legal question: it is a political and a security question. 168. Experience in many parts of the world, not least in our own, demonstrates that massive armies in close proximity to each other, against a background of a doctrine of belligerency and accompanying threats by one anny to annihilate the other, constitute an inflammatory situation. 169. We were puzzled in Israel by the relative lack of preoccupation on the part of friendly Governments and international agencies with this intense concentration which found its reflection in precautionary concentrations on our side. My Government proposed, 1 think at least two weeks ago, the concept of a parallel and reciprocal reduction of forces on both sides of the frontier. We elicited no response, and certainly no action. 170. TO these grave sources of tension-the sabotage and terrorist movement, emanating mostly from Syria, and the heavy troop concentrations accompanied by dire, apocalyptic threats in Sinai-there was added in the third week of May the most electric shock of ail, namely the closure of the international waterway consisting of the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba. It is not difficult, 1 think, to understand why this incident had a more drastic impact than any other. In 1957 the maritime nations, within the framework of the United Nations General Assembly, correctly enunciated the doctrine of free and innocent passage through the Strait. 171. Now, when that doctrine was proclaimed-and incidentally, not challenged by the Egyptian representative at that time-it was little more than an abstract principle for the maritime world. For Israel it was a great but still unfulfïlled prospect; it was not yet a reality. But during the ten years in which we and the other States of the maritime community have relied upon that doctrine and upon established usage, the principle has become a reality consecrated by hundreds of sailings under dozens of flags and the establishment of a whole complex of commerce and industry and communication, A new dimension has been added to the map of the world’s communications, and on that dimension we have constructed Israel’s bridge towards the friendly States of Asia and Africa, a network of relationships which is the chief pride of Israel in the second decade of its independence. 172. Ail this, then, had grown up as an effective usage under the United Nations flag. Does Mr. Nasser really think 174. Here then was a wanton intervention in the sovereign rights of other States in the eastern half of the world to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to establish trade relations with either or both of the two ports at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba. 175. When we examine, then, the implications of this act, we have no cause to wonder that the international shock was great. There was another reason too for that shock. Blockades have traditionally been regarded, in the pre- Charter parlance, as acts of war. TO blockade, after ail, is to attempt strangulation; and sovereign States are entitled not to have their trade strangled. TO understand how the State of Israel felt, one has merely to look around this table and imagine, for example, a foreign Power forcibly closing New York or Montreal, Boston or Marseille, Toulon or Copenhagen, Rio or Tokyo or Bombay harbour. How would your Governments react? What would you do? How long would you wait? 176. But Israel waited because of its confidence that the other maritime Powers and countries interested in this new trading pattern would concert their influence in order to re-establish a legal situation and to liquidate this blockade. We concerted action with them not because Israel’s national interest was here abdicated. There Will not be, there cannot be, an Israel without Eilat. We cannot be expected to return to a dwarfed stature, with our face to the Mediterranean alone. In law and in history, peace and blockades have never coexisted. How could it be expected that the blockade of Eilat and a relaxation of tension in the Middle East could ever be brought into harmony? 177. These then were the three main elements in the tension: the sabotage movement; the blockade of the port; and, perhaps more imminent than anything else, this vast and purposeful encirclement movement, against the background of an authorized presidential statement announcing that the objective of the encirclement was to bring about the destruction and the annihilation of a sovereign State. 178. These acts taken together-the blockade, the dismissal of the United Nations Emergency Force, and the 179. Let me then say here that Israel welcomes the appeal for the cesse-fire as forrnulated in this resolution. But 1 must point out that the implementation depends on the absolute and sincere acceptance and co-operation of the other parties, which, in our view, are responsible for the present situation, And in conveyirrg this resolution to my colleagues, 1 must at this moment point out that these other Governments have not used the opportunity yet to clarify their intentions. 180. 1 have said that the situation to be constructed after the cesse-fire must depend on certain Princip]es. The frrst of these principles surely must be the acceptance of Israel’s statehood and the total elimination of the fiction of its non-existence. It would seem to me that after 3,000 years the time has arrived to accept Israel’s nationhood as a fact, for here is the only State in the international community which has the same territory, speaks tic same language and upholds the same faith as it did 3,000 years ago. 181. And if, as everybody knows ta be the fact, the universal conscience was in the last week or two most violently shaken at the prospect of danger to Israel, it was not only because there seemed to be a danger to a State, but also, 1 think, because the State was Israel, with ail that this ancient name evokes, teaches, symbolizes and inspires. How grotesque would be an international community which found room for 122 sovereign units and which did not acknowledge the sovereignty of that people which had given nationhood its deepest significahoe and its most enduring grace. 182. No wonder, then, that when danger threatened we could hear a roar of indignation sweep across the world, that men in progressive movements and members of the scientific and humanistic cultures joined together in sounding an alarm bel1 about an issue that vitally affected the human conscience. And no wonder, correspondingly, that a 184. This, then, is the first axiom. A much more conscious and uninhibited acceptance of Israel’s Statehood is an axiom requiring no demonstration, for there Will never be a Middle East without an independent and sovereign State of Israel in its midst. 185. The second principle must be that of the peaceful settlement of disputes, The resolution thus adopted falls within the concept of the peaceful settlement of disputes. 1 have already said that much could be done if the Governments of the area would embark much more on direct contacts. They must fmd their way to each other. After all, when there is conflict between them they corne together face to face. Why should they not corne together face to face to solve the conflict. And perhaps on some occasions it would not be a bad idea to have the solution before, and therefore instead of, the confIict. 186. When the Council discusses what is to happen after the cesse-fire, we hear many formulas: back to 1956, back to 1948-I understand our neighbours would wish to turn the clock back to 1947. The fact is, however, that most clocks move forward and not backward, and this, 1 think, should be the case with the clock of Middle Eastern peace-not backward to belligerency, but forward to peace. 187. The point was weIl made this evening by the representative of Argentina, who said: the cesse-fïre should be followed immediately by the most intensive efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. In a similar sense, the representative of Canada warned us against merely reproducing the old positions of conflict, without attempting to settle the underlying issues of Arab-Israel coexistence. After all, many things in recent days have been mixed up with each other. Few things are what they were. And in order to create harmonious combinations of relationships, it is inevitable that the States should corne together in negotiation. 188. Another factor in the harmony that we would like to see in the Middle East relates to external Powers. From these, and especially from the greatest amongst them, the small States of the Middle East-and most of them are small-ask for a rigorous support, not for individual States, but for specifïc principles; not to be for one State against other States, but to be for peace against war, for free commerce against belligerency, for the pacifie settlement of disputes against violent irredentist threats; in other words, to exercise an even-handed support for the integrity and independence of States and for the rights of States under the Charter of the United Nations and other sources of international law, 191. Now whether a11 the speeches of a11 the great Powers this evening meet this criterion, everybody, of course, cari judge for himself. 1 do not propose to answer in detail a11 the observations of the representative of the Soviet Union, 1 had the advantage of hearing the same things in identical language a few days ago from his colleague, the Soviet Ambassador in Israel. 1 must confess that 1 was no more convinced this evening than 1 was the day before yesterday about the validity of this most vehement and one-sided denunciatibn. But surely world opinion, before whose tribunal this debate unrolls, cari solve this question by posing certain problems to itself. Who was it that attempted to destroy a neighbouring State in 1948, Israel or its neighbours? Who now closes an international waterway to the port of a neighbouring State, Israel or the United Arab Republic? Does Israel refuse to negotiate a peace settiement with the Arab States, or do they refuse to do SO with it? Who disrupted the 1957 pattern of stability, Israel or Egypt? Did troops of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait and Algeria surround Israel in this menacing confrontation, or has any distinguished representative seen some vast Israel colossus surrounding the area between Morocco and Kuwait? 192. 1 raise these points of elementary logic. Of course, a great Power cari take refuge in its power from the exigencies of logic. AI1 of us in our youth presumably recounted La Fontaine’s fable, “La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure. ” But here, after all, there is nobody who is more or less strong than others; we sit here around the table on the concept of sovereign equality. But I think we have an equal duty to bring substantive proof for any denunciation that we make, each of the other. 193. 1 would say in conclusion that these are, of course, still grave times. And yet they may perhaps have fortunate issue. This could be the case if those who for some reason decided SO violently, three weeks ago, to disrupt the stutus quo would ask themselves what the results and benefits have been. As he looks around him at the arena of battle, at the wreckage of planes and tanks, at the collapse of intoxicated hopes, might not an Egyptian ruler ponder whether anything was achieved by that disruption? What has it brought but strife, conflict with other powerful interests, and the Stern criticism of progressive men throughout the world? 194. 1 think that Israel has in recent days proved its steadfastness and vigour. It is now willing to demonstrate its instinct for peace. Let us build a new system of relationships from the wreckage of the old. Let us discern 202. In the chain and sequence of events that followed afterwards, everything was the result of that first act of aggression; namely, that Israel attacked the United Arab Republic with premeditation and after a well-prepared campaign. This was made amply clear by the letter [$/79X] presented to the Security Council by the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Republic on the morning of 5 June. The letter stated the following:

Mr. President, when you tïrst assumed the Presidency of this important body of the United Nations, you started your, SO to speak, maiden speech by quoting a poet from your own country. In doing SO, you indeed placed politics against its human background. For unless and until politics is SO understood, we Will always go on dealing with shadow concepts. It is only against a background of culture, against a background of thought and of human history and suffering, that politics cari be understood, As 1 say this, something cornes to my mind, the Phaedo of Plato, one of the last dialogues which he wrote about the human SOU~. In that dialogue, Socrates, prior to drinking from the chalice that contained the poison, said this to his students who were trying to convince him not to drink from the chalice and die: “Life is a lesson in death and dying”. “This morning the Israelis launched attacks against the Gaza Strip, Sinai, airports in Caire, in the Suez Canal area and several other airports within the United Arab Republic. Preliminary reports indicate that twenty-three Israel aeroplanes have been shot down and that several, Israel pilots have been captured.” 203. It Will take time to go back again to the chain of events, but members of the Security Council Will remember that, according to our presentation of the case, the whole chain of tragic events began with the Israel attack on Syria on 7 April. The Israel side, in three consecutive letters, has given its version of that attack. We also gave ours, but when 1 addressed this body [1344th meeting] 1 brought with me the report of the Israel-Syiian Mixed Armistice Commission from which 1 quoted unchallenged evidence tbat the Israel Air Force on that day attacked Syrian villages and killed Syrian civilians and destroyed civilian properties. 1 &lso respectfully requested the Secretary-General to submit a factual report about that attack of 7 April, but then events followed in such quick succession that it was not possible to press for this report. But that attack of 7 April against Syrian villages, civilians and properties should leave no doubt as to the identity of the real aggressor in this whole Middle East crisis that we are discussing now. 197. Indeed, this is a great truth, that whatever we go through in human life, from the greatest actions of nations to the simplest act of the individual, we are undergoing a lesson in death and dying. But Socrates had something else in mind: that when he drank the chalice of poison and when hc said what he said, he actually was teaching generations to corne that he was a victim of sophistry. 198. The whole Socratic doctrine is a refutation of sophistry-sophistry being, in his time, the art of picturing evil as good and good as evil. Socrates was later accused of having poisoned the mind of the Greek generation. He was condemned to die, and he died. But it is the death of Socrates that now condemns those who condemned him to die. 199. In this tiny land of Palestine, the history of mankind, in its deepest aspects, has seen a procession of false prophets, prophets who bave claimed to be real prophets, but who were not real prophets. They were sophists, the kind of sophists that Socrates fougbt. Indeed; one regrets, one wonders at the fact, that with the art of sophistry SO much evil cari sometimes be put at the service of a bad and false cause. 204. Mr. Abba Eban has again chosen to raise the issue which was the subject of a complaint submitted to the Security Council on 14 October 1966, which the Council kept under consideration until 12 November of the same year. 205. Mr. Eban dwelt at great length on sabotage and terroristic acts. 1 should like to remind the Council of my reply to Mr. Rafael when he raised the same issue in the Council. At that time I alluded to the terrorist and sabotage roots on which Israel as a State was founded. 1 also quoted from the Security Council resolution condemning Israel for the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte. But 1 shall not go into a11 that again. However, 1 must say this: that it is indeed ironical for Mr. Eban to speak about saboteurs, about respect for law,‘when he owes his own position to the lawlessness perpetrated by the Zionists against the Arab people of Palestine in what the Israelis have referred to with pride as a war of liberation. 200. 1 must confess that with that introduction 1 did not have in mind at a11 answering in any way the statement made by Mr. Abba Eban. However, there were allegations, many false presentations, in his statement that make it absolutely necessary for me to point out at least some of the basic sophistries contained in that long statement. One of them is this: His whole edifice, his whole statement, his whole presentation of the case, is based on a fallacy. And the fallacy is this: it is for us here to point out, to designate, who is the real aggressor, who is the victim of aggression, who started the aggression. 206. What was the war of liberation in Palestine? It was+a war to oust the Arabs from Palestine and to bring in an 201. 1 think it should be crystal clear to everyone here in the Council, having listened to the oral statement made by “There we were, buying arms in strange countries, packing them in fantastic receptacles, and loading them onto foreign ships in foreign ports. With it a11 was the compelling necessity for secrecy. We were conspirators, outside the law, and yet obeying what to us was a higher law.” That was the concept of law on which the State of Israel was built. 208. Since we are dealing with the outer manifestations and the inner and deeper roots of the Arab-Israel conflict, allow me in this part of my address ta make one final point. In a11 that Mr. Eban said he avoided one basic issue, and that was not incidental; nor was it because of a poor memory-1 am sure that Mr. Eban, distinguished scholar that he is, must have a very good memory. The basic issue to which 1 refer is the Arab people of Palestine. Until and unless the Arab people of Palestine are recognized by Israel and by the Israel people themselves as being the first party to the dispute, we shall only be dealing, as 1 have said many times, with palliatives rather than with solutions of the problem. ,209. At this juncture in the Middle East crisis, the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic wishes to place on record that the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, by their actions in collusion with the Israel aggressors, have proved beyond any doubt to be the bitter enemies of the Arab nation. Today we have decisive, irrefutable proof at our disposal that the air forces of Great Britain and the United States have actively participated with Israel in its aggression. The United States and the United Kingdom air forces have been participating in two ways: fïrst, by joining the Israel air force in its attacks against the Arab cities and civilians and, second, by providing air caver for the Israel armed forces. This they have done from the first moment of the Israel attack on Cairo, Damascus and Amman. The number of aircraft alone which simultaneously attacked these three cities at one time in one day prove beyond any shadow of doubt that it was not the Israel air force alone which carried out the attacks in these huge numbers. 210. Twice in our interventions-on Saturday last, 3 June, when Mr. Daoudy of the Syrian delegation spoke in the 3 New York, The New American Library, Inc., 1964. 211, However, before proceeding to more details, let me in ail fairness, perhaps to myself and to those who bave to judge the issue, point to a very great anomaly of the situation in which we find ourselves now, and that is this, The accused in this case are the United Kingdom and the United States. But their representatives sit hem in the Council as judges. Thus, we have the unique situation that 1, as a plaintiff, must accept the answer of the accused who sets himself up as a judge. 1 am sure that the representative of the United States, with his vast and great legal knowledge, knows that such a situation disqualifies the judge. 212. It certainly is no mere coincidence that today the countries of Algeria, the United Arab Republic, Iraq and my own country, Syria, have severed relations with the United States. No matter how the justification for the support of the United States Government to Israel is stated, the conviction remains with us that United States policy is geared and has been geared for the last quarter of a Century, to say the least, to the fulfilment of the aims of Zionism. Indeed, we quoted [1343rd meeting] the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Levi Eshkol, as having stated that, when addressing himself to the American Government, more specifically, to the Secretary of Defence, in asking for arms, he was told-and this appeared in the 17 April issue of U.S. News and World Report: “Don’t spend your money. We are here. The Sixth Fleet is here.” What greater proof do you want? The Sixth Fleet is now near our shores and everyone of us has read day after day that they have been patrolling the Mediterranean which they consider to be a lake for their tutelage, 213. Indeed, American and British intervention is becoming clearcr and clearer every day to ail of us. American and British planes are carrying American and British volunteers to join the Israelis to fight an aggressive war against the Arabs. Millions of dollars and pounds sterling are being poured into Israel. Not to mention the $8 billion that have been poured into Israel since its establishment-this in spite of the fact that the Israelis have occupied by force and expropriated the Arab property of Palestine which, up to 1948, amounted to 94 per cent of the total area of Palestine. Arms shipments, especially from the United States, never stop. 214. The representative of the United States wanted to remind us of the attacks to which some of the American missions in some of the Arab countries have been subjected. But on this occasion 1 would not have said this, believe me in a11 sincerity and honesty, had it not been for the fact that since we have spoken here we have been receiving one threat after another, forewarning us against assassination 215. 1 corne now to the representative of the United Kingdom. Without referring by name to me, he characterized the item of news which was circulated to the Press prior to our coming here as being a lie. When that item speaks about collusion and the help given by the British Air Force to the Israel aggressor, he described that allegation as a lie. 1 would have expected another word from the very learned representative of the United Kingdom. 216. But let me refresh the memory of the representative of the United Kingdom. In 1956, during the attack ‘on Egypt, they also described tbe accusations of collusion as being a lie. The same word was used then. But, none other than the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Nutting, wrote a book? parts of which were recently published in The Times of London. He made it quite clear that there was a definite collusion between England and Israel. At the same time, the very same word “lie” was used. This is a sample of an officia1 broadcast of Israel, whose spokesmen corne here to declare in the Security Council that they have no aggressive designs whatsoever against the Arabs and that they do not covet any Arab land, 217. Unfortunately, however, when we are challenged to that ,extent, we have to go back to history. I assure the Council with all the faithfulness of which a human being is capable that no tragedy exists in the Arab world today, and that no tragedy would have existed had it not been for the series of lies that have characterized a British colonial imperialist policy in the Arab world. Suffice it to mention that the very deep causes of the tragedy with which we are dealing now, namely, the Palestine problem, had its roots in the Balfour Declaration, and that none other than Lord Balfour himself wrote: 220. The United Kingdom, whose colonial army has been killing and persecuting the Arabs in Aden, whose ugly shadow has withdrawn from ail its huge colonial empireexcept some parts of the Arab land, because of very well-known oil interests-purports to perpetrate its colonial presence through its creation, Israel. 221. On the other hand, the United States Govemment, whose huge and powerful armies are killing the people of Viet-Nam day and night, has started a battle against our own people, the Arab people. But here and tbere, neither the Viet-Namese nor the Arabs have committed any aggression against the Americans. The United States Government, not the people, which is frghting a war of annihilation against the courageous Viet-Namese people, through the Saigon generals, is now waging the same war of annihilation against the Arab peopIe through the Tel-Aviv generals: Moche Dayan and Menachem Begin, whose nomination to the Cabinet passed unnoticed and who is the leader of the Herut Party and the famous hero of the massacre of the Deir Yassin. 1 must say that it was with great astonishment that 1 read an article in the very respected The Economist of London, which 1 regularly read every week, a description of Mr. Menachem Begin who, having quitted the leadership of his Party at one time, was described as a gentleman. “In short, SO far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers bave made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the lettes, they have not always intended to vio1ate.“5 .- 1 think this statement by Lord Balfour is the best description of a political lie that could exist. 218. 1 spoke of evidence at our disposal-and we have this evidence. As a matter of fact, an Israel pilot, by the name of Abraham Velan, with the rank of First Lieutenant, whose plane was downed over Damascus, has affnmed that British military aircraft of the Vulcan type have been stationed for the last ten days at Israel Ekron Airport. They participated, he declared, in the assault on the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Syria. He went on to affirm that other British aircraft took off from Cyprus in order to take 4 Anthony Nutting, No End of a Lesson; The Story of Suez. (London, Constable, 1967). 5 United Kingdom. Documents on British Fore@ Poli% 1919-1939, 1st Series, Vol. IV (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 195 21, p. 345. 222. The same United States Government that defeated the nazi war criminals in Germany gives these generals help, money and arms to commit genocide against the Arabs. But 219. The idea has been artificially propagated, in the United States especially, that Israel is a small and tiny peace-loving State Iooking for nothing else but peace, surrounded by ugly, aggressive Arabs bent on destroying it. Israel’s spokesmen and Zionist propagandists have been playing on mass emotions in order to draw sympathy to their side. 1 will not go into detail to refute for instance the cal1 for peace which was given by Mr. Eban, but only remind him of the plight of the Arab refugees and the confiscation of Arab property and what they did to the Holy City of Jerusalem, which is a very Holy City to us also. 1 shall simply repeat here what was said over Radio Israel yesterday as part of the psychological warfare conducted by the Israelis against the Arab peoples in aIl their countries. Addressing the Arabs, it stated: “Very soon your countries Will be under Israel rule. The Israel Army Will safeguard the population. Each one of you must do the following in order to ensure your safety: (l), stay inside your homes; (2) close the doors and Windows; (3), display a white flag as a proof that you have understood our instructions.” 223. Similarly, the Arab people will not be extinguished in spite of the British Royal Air Force and the Sixth Fleet at the disposa1 of Mr. Levi Eshkol, by his own recognition. Our lands, the Arab lands, have been saturated with the blood of martyrs for freedom, for independence and for the dignity of man. Our generation, which grew up between two world wars, has witnessed the struggle against imperialism for the honour and for the dignity of our homeland! We and our children Will continue the struggle, knowlng that life is nothing else but a lesson in death and dying. Let the Zionists not deceive themselves; they started this war and they Will bear the consequences, 224. The news is coming now that my own country, Syria, the United Arab Republic and Iraq and Algeria have all severed their relations with the United States Government, because of the facts which we have tried in a most sincere manner to put forth to the Council and because of the inherent enmity of United States policy towards us. The conclusion we have reached regrettably is unavoidable. Nevertheless, 1 wish in my closing remarks to express our regret that we have reached this impasse. 225. We have no quarrel with this great nation, with its highest responsible, intellectual and spiritual centres, with its colleges, universities and schools, with its great humanitarian institutions and traditions, but surely our quarrel is with the few politicians, with the Zionists who have misled and deceived this great people and country against the Arabs, with Zionist international intrigue that have chained the United States to their selfish interests. 1s it not strange that some of the same people who have been objecting to and opposing the war in Viet-Nam are themselves more strongly calling now for United States intervention in the Middle East to support Israel, 1s this not a clear case of ~schizophrenia, a double loyalty whose only victims Will be the United States people sacrificed on the altar of morbid Zionist action and neurotic ideology. 226. With a11 these, we certainly quarrel, but deep in our hearts we are confident that the truth which is SO clear to us now, which is SO clear by itself and which is certainly equally clear to quite’a few here, Will become clear to all. Then the truth of what we have been saying for the last twenty years Will dawn upon all. 227. With regard to the resolution adopted this evening by the Council, the position of my Government is clear. We strongly oppose any gains made by Israel stemming from a fait accompli. 228. We consider it the utmost duty of the Council to take immediate measures ta condemn the aggressor, namely, Israel, and to apply the sanctions provided for by the Charter. It is needless to say that we have repeatedly warned the Security Council in the last’two months about the impending aggression by Israel in collusion with the imperialist Powers, 231. First of all, he purported to give me legal advice about my competence to sit on this Council. In this he joins the company of others who have attempted to give me legal advice during the course of these debates. 1 have heard the legal advlce, and it sounds as if it cornes from someone not admitted to the practice of law, 1 have before me the agenda which bas been adopted unanimously. 1 do not find any complaints against the United States on that agenda, Mr. Tomeh is always welcome to submit an agenda item, which cari be discussed at the appropriate time, 232. 1 cari only conclude that Mr. Tomeh’s speech was written before 1 made my categorical denial of United States participation, military or otherwise, in this regretta. ble conflict which is now going on. 1 shall say again for his information, for the information of the Councll and for the information of his countrymen that there are no United States aircraft carriers, no military aircraft, no military forces carrying volunteers, or anything else, involved in this conflict. There is an old American slang expression that when you are involved in a situation in which your veracity is challenged, “You put up or shut UP”. 1 do not apply that to Mr. Tomeh. 233. We have put up before the Council a very simple method to test the accuracy of statements which are taken out of whole cloth-that is through the instrumentality of this Organization. We have issued an invitation to this Organization to provide obseryers in order to verify the accuracy of those unfounded statements. They Will receive the greatest welcome from my country. 1 think that that is the best proof that 1 could possibly offer concerning these extremely inflammatory and totally unfounded statements about the United States. 234. There is a statement which 1 must reject with great emphasis because it relates to the essential fabric of our society, and that is the statement charging that any Citizen of the United States has double loyalty to his country because he has attachments to his ancestral home. That was the implication, 1 take it, of Mr. Tomeh’s remark. Our country is a pluralistic society. We draw our citizenry from virtually every country on the face of the globe, That is the source of our strength as a nation from which we derive the virility of American life in our culture, in our institutions, in our traditions and in a11 that we do. We do not accept the concept that because our citizens, whatever their faith or religion or ancestral origin may be, have an interest in their ancestral homes, this is a sign of double loyalty or lack of attachment to our American institutions. 1 served in President Kennedy? administration. One of the finest features of that administration in terms of world interest was the visit he paid to his ancestral home, and that was applauded by a11 Americans, regardless of their faith, their religion, their traditions or their background. 236. But I do wish to state that it is untenable for Mcmbers of the United Nations to intervene in our domestic affairs. We would not presume to do chat with respect to any country in the world. We would not presume to do it with respect to Mr. Tomeh’s country, which is composed of several elements of religion and tradition. We simply cannot accept it as the appropriate thing to say about our country, and we do not accept it. 237. As 1 said the other day, our policies cari be approved or disapproved, praised or criticized in this Council, as it is a world body; we are not immune to that. But what we are immune to is consideration by this Council of the attitude of our own citizens, of the points of view, any points of view, that they may have in terms of the exercise of their democratic rights as citizens and of their constitutional rights. 238. Finally 1 would like to say this-and perhaps here we! cari go back to the origins of this difficulty. The canardand it was a canard-was circulated that the United States had something to do with alleged plots against Syria. 1 appeared before the Council, and 1 told it on the highest authority that there was nothing to that allegation. Repeatlng allegations without evidence and just making accusations is trot proof; it does not sustain the charge; it just spreads defamation. 1 must reject completely a statement Iike that, which is defamatory and completely unfounded.

The representative of the United Kingdom has asked to exercise his right of reply, and 1 now call on him. 245. That is the policy laid down by my Government, publicly laid down and scrupulously followed. 240, Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): 1 shall not keep the Council long in dealing with the accusations that were made by the representative of Syria just now. But when a specifrc allegation is made, it is necessary to make a specific reply.

The last speaker on my list is the representative of Morocco. 1 now invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to speak. 1 must first say how apologetic 1 feel about taking the floor at this late hour, after the permanent members of the Security Council have assured the President that their interventions would be brief. But just as 1 must beg the Council’s indulgence for the reason just mentioned, SO 1 must crave indulgence for this intervention, which 1 hope to keep as brief as possible, even if it exceeds the time the Council was good enough to allot me, The Council members’ consciousness of having done their duty tonight surely gives them the right to retire as soon as possible. 241. Three allegations have been made. One came from Damascus Radio, and what the representative of Syria tells us this evening is therefore net new. It is already known to my Government and has already been denied. There was also an accusation made by Cairo Radio, and a third accusation to which 1 shah refer in a moment. 242. The statement made by my Ministry of Defence in regard to the first two allegations 1 shall read: “The allegation on Damascus Radio that, according to a captured Israel pilot, seventeen Vulcan aircraft arrived in Israel ten days ago, is a complete lie which has no-repeat, no-foundation whatsoever. 248. However, as a representative of an Arab State, 1 iïnd it difficult, after the decision that has just been taken, to 243. The tbird allegation was that British aircraft from British aircraft carriers had taken part in recent attacks. But the fact of the matter is that there were onIy two British aircraft carriers in the area at ah-if they cari be said to have been in the area, because they were both a thousand miles away-and at the time they were both stationary in harbour. And though the representative of Syria may not know it, it is a fact that the aircraft from an aircraft carrier car-mot take off when the carrier itself is stationary and in harbour. 1 would therefore ask the representative of Syria to pay heed to the denials that have been made and to realize that his cause is not advanced by his coming here to make accusations which cari be SO completely destroyed. 244. Finally, as to the question of policy in this matter, 1 would like to repeat what was said by my Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons at the beginning of these events. This is what he said, and this is the policy to which my Government adheres-it is plain. It is publicly announced and it is widely accepted by a11 parties in my country: “The Government’s attitude-and the House Will, 1 know, support me in saying this-is that the British concern is not to take sides but to ensure a peaceful solution to the problems of that area, and that in this situation we have the same interest as that of others in the area as well as the rest of the world. The House will wish to know that instructions are being given to all our forces in the area to avoid any involvement in the conflict.” 250. It is true that the Security Council primary duty is to ensure peace. 1 associate myself with a11 the tributes paid to the Council members for their efforts during the last two weeks of the crisis, here or in their capitals, to try to bring it to an end and fïïd a solution that would guarantee, if not immediately, then at least on a longor short-term basis, the permanent conditions for a return to a just peace on a sound and stable basis. 251. But during the past two days, that is, since Israel’s aggression against the Arab States, we have seen these efforts grow in intensity and concentration. As always in history, it is perhaps too early to discern a11 their motivations, to ask the walls to speak out and reveal what went on at the private meetings between various delegations and prompted the last-minute accommodations. We shall have time later on to read about what happened. We shall find writers froni certain countries which today deny responsibility in connexion with this decision admitting with a great display of intellectual honesty the roles their countries played in the present crisis. That was the case with the Suez affair, on the occasion of which the Members of the General Assembly and the Security Council heard denials expressed in tones conveying the ring of sincerity and moral authority; today, books all over the world often bearing sensational titles, reveal the true secrets of the Suez affair. The Members of the Organization Will one day be able to read the true secrets of this new crisis and its developments. 252. Having said this, 1 feel called upon to interpret the statement by my colleague the representative of Syria-and 1 am sure he Will see eye to eye with me on my interpretation-for the statement is one which has prompted various remarks and comments by the United States representative. When the Syrian representative referred ta the behaviour of a segment of the public in, 1 shall not say this country, but this City, this was a legitimate observation on the part of the representative of a delegation which perhaps has been threatened with death, which has seen demonstrators parading with impunity in front of the United Nations building during Security Council meetings, which has heard the Secretary-General booed and delegations insulted, which has seen people approach cars in order to find out the country of ownership SO as to have an opportunity of leaning through the window and shouting insults which 1 shall not repeat here for fear of shocking the modesty of my audience. 253. We are not challenging the social structures of a great country, let alone its democratic institutions. But we cari challenge-and 1 should like to be understood in an objective spirit-the pressures under which we and the Security Council have been living. I have heard distinguished representatives of the United Nations mention the 254. 1 am sure that Ambassador Goldberg Will appreciate the feelings that have prompted me to round off the Sytian representative’s statement and express the desire to see that the debates in this Council and the actions of the delegations are protected from certain influences and pressures. 255. TO return to the nub of the question, the Council has just adopted a resolution unanimously. While we reserve our right to speak on the substantive issue, the Moroccan delegation would be the last to challenge the Council’s right to take a decision, particularly when it is unanimous, But the Council is not only a forum where witnesses are heard; it is also a courthouse where political and moral judgements have to be handed down, and the Council’s first duty on 5 June, when the representative of the United Arab Republic lodged a complaint against Israel’s aggression should, 1 believe, have been to start by determining the perpetrator of the aggression. Among a11 the statements made, even in the Press comments, we have not found a single sentence indicating that the Arabs had initiated the fighting or disputing the fact that Israel had made the first move. If any doubt should remain, the fact that Mr. Eban, an expert on the procedures of this Organization and a truly powerful rhetorician, thought it necessary to corne here to face questions on this problem, questions which unfortunately were not put, is signifïcant. We consider it impermissible that when hos,tilities break out-and 1 am speaking as a Member of the United Nations and not as the representative of an Arab country-the side-issues should overshadoti the basic issue or a solution should be sought in Security Council debates without delving into the underlying reasons which have prompted these debates and presented the world, for the past twenty-four hours, with the spectacle of a war whose beginnings we well understood but whose end it was impossible to predict. 256. The country which took that responsibility upon itself has not heard in this Council Chamber a single expression of regret, let alone condemnation, for the initiative it took. In Cairo the Secretary-General was given an assurance by the Arabs that they would not start a war; and the Arab representatives repeated that assurance here. The behaviour of the Arab delegations here and of the Arab countries themselves prove-and we, too, cari send factfinding commissions to verify this-that no steps were taken which, from a military standpoint, indicated that preparations for attack were under way. We will be told, of course, that where military measures are concerned it is no use trying to distinguish between defensive and aggressive actions. 1 am not prepared to allow Mr, Eban to slip that insinuation into his speech unchallenged. We are ready to 261. Perhaps those two observations may be felt to be beside the point, but I was most impressed as a student, by a book on the Battle of Verdun in which the author wrote that on one occasion when reports were being made to Foch and Pétain, the report was tut short with the comment, “Don? tel1 me about the events, just tel1 me what they mean.” It is the meaning of this event that 1 wanted to bring more fully to the Council’s notice. 262. However, 1 do not wish to impose upon your indulgence or continue to give free rein to this exposition of justifiable considerations which, 1 must point out, 1 have voiced not only as the representative of an Arab country but also as the representative of a United Nations Member State, a Rate which, 1 cari say without fear of contradiction, has in every serious crisis given the Organization all manner of support commensurate with its possibilities and sometimes even taxing its financial and political possibilities. 263. Our policy is based on one of tbe few dogmas which the Second World War and the freedom proclaimed for the entire world have validated, a dogma which lias been an article of faith for a generation, namely, that of the moral authority of the United Nations and the certainty that it stands as a bulwark against aggression and injustice. It is as champions of this principle that we have spoken today with such justifiable emotion. 258, 1 should also like to mention here and now-and 1 do SO with a11 diffdence, having neither the accumulated political experience to allow me to make such a statement nor the presumption, even less, to pass judgement on the members of the Council-that in this dcbate we have witnessed a new phenomenon, some aspects of which are perhaps gratifying, but which has other very serious aspects that need to be pointed out. We have seen the four great Powers join together without difficulty in sponsoring a resolution which is silent as regards determining responsibility.of the aggressor. This is something new. We are the first to approve of complete understanding between the great Powers in the interests of world peace. However, if it is a decision of this nature which has led to the collective silence as regards determining the aggressor or defming the actions which provoked this crisis, we cari foresee the dangers inherent in that attitude in the years ahead. No dialectic, however powerful, and whatever the ideology or culture from which it stems, Will suceed in dispelling the obscurity that surrounds that point for the moment. 264. 1 also have something to say in connexion with certain observations by the Israel representative who, with admittedly skillful rhetoric, passed over in silence a11 the underlying causes and stages of this crisis and dwelt at length on the right of a nation to exist and to have its place in the world. 265. On more than one occasion, here or elsewhere, my country has expounded what 1 might cal1 our philosophy regarding that principle. We do not dispute the right of any ethnie group in the world, of any racial group of no matter what faith, to gather in any corner of the world in order to create a home and a nation, But what we do abject to is the fact that while many countries are still calling for immigrants in order to fil their empty spaces, the choice fell on the most fragile political entity of the times-fragile because it was not yet soundly on its feet and had only just won its freedom, thus opening the way to the amputation of the Arab territory in order to put people there who are free to go wherever they wish but who have evicted others who had lived there much longer than the oft-mentioned two thousand years. This mistake, accepted in 1948, has led to a series of tragic events whose end is not yet in sight. 259. We have witnessed the first meeting and the first decision of a “club of great Powers” whose members we sincerely trust Will see eye to eye, on behalf, we hope, of international justice, equity and a peace in which regional considerations, with the strategic positions and interplay of world forces which underlie them, Will not suddenly give rise to unexpected attitudes. 260. No country attaches more importance than does mine to the authority of the United Nations. By a happy chance, we were admitted to the United Nations in 1956 when the Suez crisis was under discussion. As we came in contact with the work of the Organization and all its 266. Par twenty years the Arabs, have been accused of preparmg for war. A short time ago someone made the 267. Tonight they have suffered another disappointment, 1 have no intention of defending a cause which other speakers before me have SO eloquently defended, but 1 assure you that those who wish to base their country’s policy on a foundation of international trust have tonight received a shock that has made them hesitate and which, if repeated, or rather, if not redressed as it should be, would largely undermine their belief, if not destroy their entire faith, in the Organization. 268. Mr. FEDORENKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russianj: A decision has been Litho in U.N. Price: $US. 1.50 (or equivnlent in other currencies) 8356-December 1970-2,100

1 said in my initial statement that, 1 was confident that 1 expressed the unanimous wish of the members of the Council in most urgently appealing to the parties to comply immediately with the provisions of this resolution. 1 cari give the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the assurance that 1 Will take the necessary measures and steps in order to see that, on OUI side, everything is done in order that the parties Will comply with this decision. 271, 1 cari further inform the Council that tables have already been sent by the Secretariat to the capitals concerned. 272, 1 have no more speakers on my list. 1 shah consult with the members of the Council concerning the date of our next meeting. We shall adjourn now on the understanding that members Will hold themselves in readiness should the circumstances or the developments necessitate the convening of a meeting at short notice. The meeting rose at 11.20 p.m