S/PV.1375 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken by the Council at its 1373rd meeting on 9 November, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of the United Arab Republic, Israel and Jordan to take places at the Council table and to participate without vote in the discussion. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Mahmoud Riad (United Arab Republic), Mr. A. &ban (Israel) and Mr. A. n/r. Rifa 1 (Jordan) took places at the Council table.

I have received a letter dated 11 November [S/8237] from the representative of Syria asking that his delegation be invited to participate without vote in the discussion. If I hear no objection, I shall invite the representative of Syria to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. A. Daoudy (Syria) took a place at the Council table.

The Security Council will now resume its discussion of the question before it. I should like to draw the Council’s attention to the draft resolution dated 10 November, ($3236/ on this question submitted by the Soviet Union delegation. The first speaker on my list is the representative of Israel. I now call upon him.

I thank you, Mr. President, for agreeing on 9 November that I make immediate reply to the accusations brought against Israel by the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic [1373rd meet&g]. That agreement was frustrated, and members of the Council went on to formulate their views after hearing one party and not the other. 5. I draw relative satisfaction from the fact that eight members of the Security Council voted for the normal decencies of equitable discussion. This is not a procedural issue alone. Since 1953, the Security Council has been prevented by the Soviet veto policy from adopting any resolution to which an Arab State is opposed, irrespective of the merits of the case or of the majority view. We have now had an initiative from the same source to prevent a normal procedure of discussion by parties at interest in an international dispute. The denial to Israel of equal opportunity to succeed in its advocacy in the Security Council has for fifteen years been an important factor in the derangement of the Middle Eastern equjlibrium. If the imbalance is extended from matters of substance to’ those of procedure, the Security Council’s function in the Middle Eastern conflict will become progressively undermined. Surely then a vigilant resistance to discrimination must be waged not only by international organizations, but within them. 6. I now come to this table to clarify israel’s attitude on three questions: What answer do we make to the violent accusations directed against us by the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic? How does Israel propose to advance peace and security in the Middle East? How can the Security Council, within the terms of our Charter, best promote the settlement of the conflict arising from the war which the Arab States have been waging and maintaining against Israel for nearly two decades? 7. The Security Council has been called into session at the request of the Government of the United Arab Republic, which in the summer of this year attempted to destroy the State of Israel and wipe it forever off the map of the earth. Humility and repentance would have been more appros priate to the Egyptian Foreign Minister than the plaintive belligerence which he has expressed. 8. Seldom has a Government committed a more wanton assault on international peace than that which the United 9. I can still recall his voice as I heard it on 26 May; “We have been biding our time until we were perfectly ready and prepared . . . we now feel that we are sufficiently strong and that, engaging in war with Israel, we can, with God’s help, be victorious.” Lest this be not clear enough, we heard the official announcement from Radio Cairo later that day: “The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the face of the globe.” 10. There has never been an aggressive war for which responsibility is more explicit and unmistakable than the United Arab Republic’s responsibility for this war. The representative of the United Arab Republic has told the Security Council nothing of all this. His Government now comes here saturated with war guilt, heavy with responsibility for nineteen years of purposeful aggression, to lay complaint and accusation against Israel, 12. But the dramatic facts which the United Arab Republic representative has wantonIy suppressed are not forgotten in Israel. They will never be forgotten there. A new dimension has been added to the national memory, and the exploration of it will long continue. Our nation still lives intimately with the peril and the solitude which afflicted it in those agonizing weeks. We still remember the cold horror which that peril evoked in world opinion. We still recall how the imminent extinction of Israel’s statehood and the massacre of its population were seriously discussed across the world in wild intoxication of spirit in every Arab capital, and with tormented but impotent sorrow in other lands. We take unbounded pride in the six days of resistance by which the danger was gloriously overcome. And we remember the heavy price exacted’in death and bereavement, in mutilation and anguish and suffering. 13. These are our m&mories. I evoke them here in vehement rejection of the attempt by the United Arab Republic representative to wash his hands clean of his Government’s sustained aggression against the security of Israel and the peace of the Middle East. I recall them also because these memories lie at the heart and centre of Israel’s policy today. If you ignore our memories, you cannot understand our policy. That policy can be expressed in a single sentence. It is our firm resolve never, never to return to the danger and vulnerability from which we have emerged. This resolve must prevail over every other consideration. To avoid a return to any of the conditions which prevailed on 4 June is a supreme national purpose, worthy of every effort and any consequence. 14. In their speeches to the Security Council on 9 November [1373rd meeting], the Soviet and United Arab Republic representatives sought to persuade the Security Council of two things: firstly, that Israel’s refusal to be strangled and bludgeoned to death was an act of “aggression”, and secondly, that the way to get peace in the Middle East is to reproduce the precise conditions Which brought about the war. These are the only two ideas which the Soviet and Arab representatives have expressed during, the long discussions of the summer and autumn months. 1 submit that there is not a single grain of truth or value in either of them. 15. It is especially important that this problem of aggres. sion be faced and probed. It is the starting point for any rational understanding of past events and future necessities, The Egyptian Foreign Minister spoke of Israel “aggression” sixty-one times; the Soviet representative only twenty-four’, Frequency of reiteration is a typical symptom of weak argument. Never has this been more true than in this case, To the charge of aggression I reply that Israel’s resistance to 21. I understand that both Governments have now confessed this forgery, But it remains for ever inscribed on the tablets of history. It is reasonable that all other Egyptian and Jordanian assertions on the origins and evolutions of this conflict be assessed in the light of this dangerous manoeuvre. 16. Something of this world opinion found expression even in the international organizations where Arab and Soviet positions have a great numerical advantage. Proposals seeking to define Israel’s action as “aggression” were rejected in the Security Council on 14 June [136&h meeting], and in four separate votes in the General Assembly at its emergency session on 4 July [154&h meeting/. In each case, the rejection of the charge was so emphatic as to imply a rebuke to those who had invented it. Of special significance was the defeat of what the spokesman of the Latin American group called “the ridiculous Soviet resolution” on Israel “aggression” for the discussion of which the General Assembly had been convened in emergency session. 22. So much then for the charge of Israel “aggression”. The other part of the Soviet and Arab case as presented on 9 November is that the 4 June situation should be restored. The folly and injustice of this suggestion were expounded by many eminent statesmen who took part in the General Assembly discussion last summer. Speakers from all five continents stressed what should now be an international axiom. It was perhaps most incisively stated by the Minister of External Affairs of Canada, quoting a previous statement by his eminent Prime Minister: 17. I am aware that Israel’s decision to survive has caused some difficulty for Arab representatives and those ~110 support them. But in the light of international judgements and of massive world opinion, everyone who speaks of Israel “aggression” is uttering a violent untruth. Israel’s defensive action was taken when the choice was to live or to perish, to protect the national existence or to forfeit it for all time. We even have Arab acknowledgement that this was our choice. The official Cairo Radio on 23 May defined the situation with unusual veracity, It said: “Israel is faced with two alternatives, either of which will destroy it. It will either be strangled to death by the Arab territorial and economic blockade, or it will perish by fire of the Arab forces encompassing it from the South, from the North and from the East.” “Are we to go through all this again? Are we to return to the status quo? Such a return would not be to a position of security . , , but would be a return to terror, bloodshed, strife, incidents, charges and counter-charges and ultimately another explosion.“’ 23. The most profound need of the Middle East is for constructive innovation. We must not be satisfied to rebuild the fragile provisional structure which, under the weight of years and the brunt of Arab hostility, has fallen about our heads in ruin. We must now build a durable edifice of relations insuring security and peace for our tormented region. 24. In the light of this principle, I now come to state Israel’s national policy: a cease-fire has been established by the Security Council as a provisional measure within the terms of the Charter. We shall maintain and respect the cease-fire until it is replaced, as we wish to replace it, by peace treaties ending the state of war, determining the agreed national frontiers of States, and ensuring a stable and mutually guaranteed security. We cannot return to the shattered armistice regime or to any system of relations other than a permanent contractually binding peace, And we agree with those who have said in the General Assembly and elsewhere that the fragile armistice lines must be superseded by agreed and secure national boundaries. After 18. The most important action which the United Nations has taken, beyond the cease-fire, has been to determine the non-aggressive character of Israel’s operations in early June. Everything in our policy flows from this premise. Our thinking on the political, juridical, territorial, and security aspects of the Middle Eastern problem is based on the secure premise that we have repelled aggression, are still being threatened with its renewal, and must now so act as to ensure that it shall not succeed in any new assault. 19. In, rejecting the description given by the United Arab Republic representative on past events, I cannot fail to comment on the general record of veracity. This theme is illustrated by an extraordinary event of which the international implications have not yet been fully explored. The Governments of the United Arab Republic and the Special Session, Plenary Meetings, 1533rd meeting, para. 115. 26. The international discussion of the Middle East has been long and intricate. It is possible, however, to define the theme and issue in simple terms. There has been not a six-day war, there has been a nineteen-year war conducted by the Arab States against Israel in varying degrees of intensity, with the ultimate hope and purpose of Israel’s destruction. The issue is whether this war is going to be liquidated now by a final peace settlement or merely interrupted in order to be resumed in conditions more propitious for success. We should fail in candour if we were to describe the issue in less clear and lucid terms. The question is not whether Arab States do or do not recognize Israel’s right to exist. We do not seek Arab recognition of our nation’s right to exist. Israel’s right to exist is precisely equivalent to theirs and is not in any degree dependent on their consent. There is even something invidious in the phrase. What we seek and what the international community should promote is not a meaningless formula, but a meaningful act. The act of which I speak is the negotiation and conclusion of peace treaties by direct negotiation between Israel and the Arab States. 27. In adopting this policy we are faithful to international precedents and traditions. It is a traditional principle of international law, as United Arab Republic representatives have SO often pointed out, that a state of war can be terminated only by a treaty of peace. This was last said at this table in May 1967. It is also a universal tradition that cease-fire lines are superseded by permanent boundaries, and that a transition from a state of war to a state of peace is effected by bilateral agreement. Every item in Israel’s current policy conforms with established international practice. We are behaving as any State is entitled to behave against which a state of war has been openly proclaimed and brutally practised. Israel is not in a position of juridical defence. 28. Never in Charter history has there been a case such as this where several States have conspired to expunge another 29. The irrationality of replacing the cease-fire by any, thing short of peace is illustrated by a study of the addre!s$ of the United Arab Republic’s Foreign Minister. If we were to follow his advice, we should be consciously inaugura$ a prelude to the next explosion. There would be a renewed blockade of Israel’s southern approaches. There would be immunity for terrorist incursion from a reoccupied Gazr(, There would be the old inferno of insecurity in the heights of Golan and upper Galilee. There would be the constarll possibility of menacing troop concentrations in Sinai. There would be a military frontier tearing Jerusalem apa.~ between two rival sovereignties. Israel after its peril arId sacrifice would be restored to full vulnerability. In tll~ absence of a peace treaty with a final boundary settlement, there would be the continuing tension arising from recipro. cal territorial claims. Everything would be ambiguous, provisional, precarious and unresolved. 30. This policy should be examined in the light ot’ Preiident Nasser’s address to the Khartoum conference in which he said, in effect, that Israel’s withdrawal should be politically achieved because the Arab States were not strong enough to achieve it militarily. Once withdrawal w/as accomplished without negotiation or reconciliation wiith Israel, he said, an Egyptian army and air force rearmed by Soviet weapons could&y intimidation or action, inaugurate the next phase o< pressure leading to the “recovery of Palestine”. Something of this view was there endorsed by King Hussein. The central idea was to have an interval, rIOi to have a termination. 31. The Security Council will note that in his address Ithe Egyptian Foreign Minister promised nothing in return for what he asked. We must assume, in accordance with the latest recorded statement, that it is still the policy of Llle United Arab Republic to close the Suez Canal to Israel shipping, A contrary statement by the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic would, of course, be of interest here. We must still assume that it is the policy of the Uni$ Arab Republic to regard the Gulf of Aqaba as an inter0 Arab waterway; to maintain an economic boycott “5 pressure on other States; and to preserve territorial cl@’ beyond the point of the withdrawal which they seek. f’le 4’ Egyptian representative’s assertion at this table last slum Uef that his Government does not regard Eilat as part of Isf has not been cancelled. Is the Foreign Minister in a to cancel it? If the previous Egyptian policies on the the Gulf and the open character of the territorial tion have changed, would the Foreign Minister say so at table? He has not said so. He has not responded to 32. The severity of this verdict is not reduced by the nostalgia of the United Arab Republic for the 1949 Armistice Agreement. When the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic says that he wants to return to that Agreement he is uttering a threat and not a promise. For that Agreement worked and would work only according to the United Arab Republic’s interpretation of it. It was converted long ago by the United Arab Republic’s inter” pretation into a formula for belligerency, a prescription for blockade, a basis for irredentism, and an alibi for a refusal to make peace. In this Security Council on 29 ‘May Ambassador El Kony correctly stated that that Agreement was based on military considerations alone. But he also stated on that occasion that: “The existence of a state of war . . . is distinctly and explicitly stated in article IV, paragraph 3”, and that “the conclusion of a partial or general armistice agreement does not end the state of war” f I343rd meeting, paras. 90 and 871. 33. Thus, whenever a representative of the United Arab Republic speaks of the 1949 Agreement we should know what he means. The United Arab Republic has declared, published and proclaimed that that Agreement was consistent with the doctrine of a state of war; with nonrecognition of sovereignty; with permissive encouragement 0f terrorist incursion; with unresolved territorial claims; with an unrenounced hope of bringing about Israel’s liquidation. We are tired of contesting the United Arab Republic’s interpretations, We accept them; we accept that the 1949 Agreement signifies what the United Arab Republic has always interpreted it to mean: the absence of peace, maritime blockade, and a prelude to ultimate total war. That is why that Agreement exploded long ago. It was, i11 the Egyptian conception, a regulated system of unilateral hostility. 34. We can, accordingly, have nothing to do with it or with any of its apparatus or with any similar situation of juridical anarchy. The only juridical possibility now available is full, formal peace, Why should we evade this fact? Everything else has been tried, War has been tried three times; cease-fires, truces and armistices have been tried for nineteen years, only to explode in successive vidlence. Only one thing has not been tried: only peace has not been tried. The hour is ripe for the untried experiment of peace. 3 5. It is remarkable and ominous that after two decades’of war and fragile armistice it should be necessary to argue that the only alternative to the cease-fire is now formal peace. My friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Ireland said, on 27 June: “the only hope I see of avoiding another outbreak in the area is the speedy negotiation and signing of a permanent treaty of peace by Israel and the neighbouring States”.’ 36. Yet we have not lived to see the day when this simple, precise idea is expressed in a draft resolution or a working 2 Ibid., 1538th meeting, pam. 39. 37. Just as it is paradoxically necessary to labour hard to persuade international organs of the necessity to advocate peace treaties, so is it necessary to prove that the advocacy of negotiation is not an extravagant and somewhat immoderate pursuit. This is the most extraordinary of all recent developments. The United Nations jurisprudence on the problem of negotiation has been in constant retreat for many years. 38. Nineteen years ago the General Assembly called on the Arab States and Israel “to seek agreement by negotiations . + . with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them”. That is the text of the General Assembly’s recommendation of 11 December 1948 [resolution 194 (III)/. That call was repeated by the General Assembly in identical terms on 14 December 1950 (resolution 394 (L’)J, and on 26 January 1952 [resolution 512 (VI)]. The latter declared significantly that “the governments concerned have the primary responsibility for reaching a settlement of their outstanding differences”; this was said by the United Nations General Assembly fifteen years ago. 39. On 11 August 1949, this Security Council, having approved the General Armistice Agreements, expressed the hope that the signatory States would “at an early date” seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission for Palestine or directly for a settlement of all questions outstanding between them lresolu tion 73 (1949)]. 40. On 17 November 1950, the Security Council was obviously beginning to think that the armistice had lasted too long. Accordingly, it reminded Egypt, Israel and Jordan of their obligation to negotiate for permanent peace (resolution 89 (1950)]. On 18 May 1951, the Security Council was visibly perturbed by the fact that the armistice had lasted for two whole years. Accordingly, the Security Council expressed “its concern” at the failure of Syria and Israel to move beyond the armistice to “permanent peace” (resolution 93 (1951/f. 41, Today, after nearly two decades, the Security Council and the General Assembly are inhibited not only from acting but even from speaking about the negotiation of permanent peace. The Arab States have been allowed to banish the word “negotiation” from the United Nations vocabulary. No delegation has allowed this fatal concept to appear in any text that we have been shown. The idea of negotiation has been converted from a Charter principle into an Israel eccentricity. Worse than this seems to have happened. Negotiation is sometimes described as a beautiful dream, but beyond the scope of rationality. The eminent Foreign Minister of France said on 22 June: “How can it be expected that these Arab countries, which for twenty years have refused to negotiate with Israel-however great the shock they suffered or possibly 43. I have never heard of any substantive agreement on any subject ever having been achieved by Governments that do not set eyes on each other. When there is no shock we are told that negotiation is unnecessary. And when there is shock, we are told that it is unrealistic. I do not believe that a Security Council which declined to assert the inadmissibility of refusing negotiation would be likely to stimulate a purposeful move towards peace. 44. So much, then, for the. concepts of peace and negotiation, which I think are indispensable in any statement of Security Council objectives. 45. In addition to these, the Israel Government attaches primary importance to the necessity, after nineteen years of ambiguity, of determining permanent and agreed national boundaries. Now this is really the very heart of the Arab-Israel problem. The central issue to be negotiated in a peace settlement is the establishment of permanent boundaries. Without this how can we envisage any solution of the deadlock? The position was stated with complete precision by the Prime Minister of Denmark, Mr. Krag, when he said to us in the General Assembly on 21 June: “I therefore suggest that the problem of withdrawal cannot be envisaged as an isoIated step. The problem of the withdrawal of troops is closely connected with some of the most burning and sensitive political problems, such as the final settlement of the borders in the area and the claim of Israel, and indeed of all States in the area, for the safeguarding of their territorial and political integrity.“4 46. This observation was made almost at the same time as that in which the President of the Wnited States was emphasizing the necessity of applying the principle of territorial integrity to accepted and secure national frontiers and not to fragile armistice lines, A few days ago the representative of Canada spoke of the transition from war to peace and of the necessity for xecure, recognized, respected and acknowledged boundaries. 47. The problem is too serious to be dismissed by Soviet charges of what the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union called Israel expansionism. A glance at the map of the Soviet Union as it has evolved in the past three decades lends a remarkable aspect to any observations by the Soviet 3 Ibid., 1531st meeting, para. 101. 4 Ibid., 1529th meeting, para. 73. on to deny Israel’s full title to the territory on its side of the demarcation line. 48. It did not occur to Ambassador El-Farah that a legal principle, if it is to be applied at all, must be applied reciprocally. But it can be certainly agreed that nothing has been more effective in preventing an atmosphere of stability in the Middle East than the fact that for nineteen years there have been demarcation lines based, accordiag to the 1949 Agreements, on “military considerations” alone. Nothing has been regarded as permanent. Everything has been unresolved. The text of the Egyptian-Israel Agreement said: “The Armistice Demarcation line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party . . . as regards ultimate settlement.” And also: “It is also recognized that the basic purposes and spirit of the Armistice would not be served by the restoration of previously held military positions.“’ 49, Israel does not ask the Security Council to endorse or refute any specific view on the manner in which a s’ecure and agreed boundary should be negotiated. We are, how ever, entitled to ask that our position in that inevitable negotiation be not prejudiced. It is not relevant to transfer the territorial doctrines and experiences of another hemisphere to an area in which the only territorial agreements which have ever existed have been based on military considerations alone. If territorial dispositions based 011 military considerations are “inadmissible”, then the inadmissibility applies to territories occupied by Egypt and Jordan in defiance of cease-fire and truce resolutions in May 1948. Indeed, it applies to the whole of the territory of the previous Palestine Mandate. It would be discrinrinatory to apply the principle in one direction alone. Regional doctrines cannot be transplanted from one continent tc another without regard to the different juridical circumstances which prevail. We must work within the law and the necessities which apply to our own region. Our own re:gio% to its disaster, has only had demarcation lines based on military conquests or military considerations. The distlnction is vital. A demarcation line means v-ulnerabiIity. A negotiated boundary means stability. A demarcatiorl line means the maintenance of reciprocal territorial claims. A boundary implies their mutual and final renunciation. Surely, in view of the importance of this matter, it lis the 51, The three-Power draft also prejudices our territorial and security problem by asking for withdrawal without a final peace treaty and by’ defining in advance the territorial and security situations which should follow the cease-fire. That was not done in 1948. The situation to be achieved after the cease-fire was left for the negotiation of the parties, with the help of the United Nations. It is for the sovereign Governments of the area to determine by negotiation the situation to succeed the cease-fire. 52. The statement on maritime freedom in this text is entirely compatible with the United Arab Republic’s doctrine on the exclusion of Israel’s shipping from the Suez Canal and with the definition of the Gulf of Aqaba as an Arab waterway. If this were not so, the text would frankly speak of freedom for the shipping of all States, including Israel, in the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba. In view of the role of the navigation problem in the wars of 1956 and 1967, this obscurity is perilous to peace, In view of these fundamental weaknesses, the Israel Government has decided that it cannot give consent, support or co-operation to this proposal or to any diplomatic processes based upon it. Israel will give its constructive attention to any proposal based on a negotiated peace which does not prejudice our substantive interests in advance. There are no proposals tabled which prejudice the Arab theory or doctrine or negotiating position. Ours should not be prejudiced. Similarly, there are no proposals on the table which give sufficient weight in our view to the conception of negotiation and agreement. 53. It is vital that at this important stage of our work we should understand the principles by which we should guide our action. The Security Council is acting within Chapter VI of the Charter in pursuit of pacific settlement. It is seeking agreements and not imposed solutions. If it were able to impose anything, the time to have acted seriously would have been when the Canadian and Danish delegations, in those perilous hours last May, called for action to Prevent the impending tragedy of war. 54, But when the clouds of war gathered fast and Israel’s danger electrified the conscience of mankind, the Security Council was Prevented by its internal structure and power balance from doing or saying anything to prevent the impending war. It offered Israel no single grain of support or encouragement in her ordeal of encirclement and blockade. The Paralysis of the Council’s function in that 55. In May the United Arab Republic representative, with the support of the Soviet and Bulgarian representatives on the Security Council, was asking the Council for nonintervention.’ They said that there was no reason why the Security Council should be wasting its time in having a meeting at all. That was their view in the third week of May 1967. 56. In the last week of May, we had the unbelievable spectacle of the Soviet, Bulgarian and Arab representatives arguing that there was no reason for the Security Council to do anything, there was nothing to cause concern-only a murderous troop concentration against Israel on three fronts, only a fully-fledged maritime blockade, only the declaration of a state of war and the announcement by President Nasser that he was now going to secure Israel’s total destruction. The Arab States then succeeded in obtaining from the Security Council the non-intervention which they sought. They now ask it to inteivene in order to rescue them from that success. The United Arab Republic virtually says to the Security Council: “Stay out of the way when I wish to make war against Israel. Come and restore me if my adventure fails,” 57. This surely is not the Council’s task. I was impressed by the weight of opinion expressed around this table on 9 November in favour of a consensual result in which the parties could acquiesce because they would feel that their positions were not prejudiced in advance. This, I think, is the only reasonable course which can still be pursued with some hope of success. 58. I was surprised that, in introducing the three-Power text, the Indian representative did not attach any importance to the question of whether Israel’s co-operation had been sought or could be anticipated. I was surprised because, in United Nations jurisprudence, his Government has always laid great stress on the need for securing the agreement of the parties for any United Nations effort within the domain of pacific settlement. 59. For example, on 24 January 1957, the Indian representative said: “ . . 9 there are only two ways in which any settlement can be reached. One is imposition; and I submit that the United Nations has no power under the Charter of imposing a settlement. The other is by the agreement of the two parties. Therefore, today to record another resolution which reaffirms something that one party has rejected, reaffirms the large number of resolutions which we have rej,ected . . . is, in our submission, not calculated to promote the purposes of the United Nations or of the exercise by the Security Council of the tasks entrusted to it.” [ 765th meeting, para. 140.1 The Indian representative said on 20 February 1957: “ [Those J who produced this draft resoIution which has now been co-sponsored by others, had both private and public knowledge that the Government of India would in no circumstances agree to this. Therefore, to produce a proposition which requires the consent of the parties, in the face of our declaration that we will not agree to it, is either to take the view that what we say does not mean anything or that their persuasive powers would be so great that we would surrender our principles. I think that neither of those conclusions is justified.” [773rd meeting, para. 79.J On 7 May 1964 the Foreign Minister of India, Mr. Chagla, said: “My final appeal to the Security Council is to realize that the differences between India and Pakistan can be solved only by those two countries, and that there is more chance of a settlement if there is no intervention by third parties. No superimposed solution will do any good.” [ill 3th meeting, para. 61./ And on 12 May 1964 he said: “If the Council is interested in the maintenance of peace and internationd relations, it should avoid any solution superimposed upon the two countries or intervention in any talks or discussions we might have with each other.” [1115th meeting, para. 35.1 60. These doctrines are of immaculate validity. But Israel, like India, has been a sovereign State for nearly two decades, and her vital interests should not be, cannot be, determined outside her consent. Moreover, there is one criterion which distinguishes Israel from every other State. It is well that I should speak of it frankly. Israel, alone in the family of nations, is struggling not for a marginal interest or even for a cherished objective but for her very existence and survival. All men of sensitive conscience and of historic imagination must surely respect this consideration with special care. 61. The Arab Press is already full of articles about how Israel can still be destroyed in a second stage, if at this stage she can be lured or pressed back to where she was on 4 June 1967, without peace and without a permanent frontier delimitation. 62. We have learnt this summer to take Arab public statements very seriously, And when Israel’s survival is brought into question, there comes into the human consciousness a great mass of memories of holocausts and massacres for which Israel’s sovereignty and security are the only shelter and consolation. Therefore this is not a matter to be dealt with lightly. We in the Government of Israel must guide our action in the light of a responsibility which 64. I say this because we do not wish to stand still. We want the caravan of peace to move forward, but jn prudence and in sure direction. We believe that a directly negotiated peace settlement is not only possible but inevitable. Our basic premise is the inadmissabilit!, of refusing negotiation in an international dispute, As the British Prime Minister said in the General Assembly two years ago, peace”.6 “the enemies of negotiation are the enemies of 6.5. A peace negotiation, for us, is not an abstract principle. We have serious and constructive proposals to make in these communications with neighbouring States. Those proposals would be conducive to the interest and the national honour of all negotiating States. We should, of course, have to be ready to consider and react to ideas put to us directly by the other side. We have a concrete vision of what peace means in terms of our region’s daily life: peaceful relations instead of violent acts; normal dialogue instead of belligerent threats; thriving commerce instead of boycotts and blockades; intensive regional development within a community of sovereign States; a constructive and compassionate approach to the population problems created by two decades of war and Arab belligerency; a respectful concern, formally expressed, for universal spiritual interests; liberation from the crushing burden of compctitive armament; the devotion of Arab and Israel efforts, free from military strife and political rancour, to the adviancement of the total human destiny. These are not impossible objectives. They lie ready to our hand. We shall maintain our position until they are achieved, but it is to their achievement, to the achievement of peace, that our effort will be consecrated, be the journey short or long. 66, The PRESIDENT (translated &urn French): I call upon the representative of Jordan, 67. Mr. RIFA’I (Jordan): The issue before the Council today is one of principle and lies at the very roots of the United Nations, It defines the problem which has been before the Council for the past five months. The answer which the Council gives will determine the future course of events in the Middle East as well as the image of the United Nations in the world. Are we in this Organization prepared to stand firm and take a clear decision, or are we to shrink from our responsibilities and sit back and let matters drag on and lead to failure, confusion and an arbitrary state of affairs based on military activities? 6 official Records of the General Assembly, Twentieth Session, Plemcv bYeclings, 1397th meeting, para. 43, 69. Members of the Council will recall that, on the outbreak of fighting, Security Council resolution 233 (1967) called, as a first step, for an immediate cease-fire and for a cessation of all military activities in the area. Surely that resolution was a prelude to something basic that was supposed to follow-that is, the elimination of acquisition of territory by military conquest, in order that a state of affairs might be created which would bring about peace and justice, of which this area has been deprived for the past twenty years, Instead, we find that we are now where we were on the day we first met in this Council, and the problem has been left unresolved, and diplomatic efforts and countepefforts have taken the place of urgent and affirmative action. In the course of this long delay Israel defiance has been building up, 70, In its resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June, the Security Council called upon the Govermnent of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations, had taken place and to facilitate the return of the inhabitants who had fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities. Israel failed to comply with that resolution, and of the 200,000 citizens who fled from west to east Jordan it refused to allow more than 14,000 to return. 71. In its resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V), the General Assembly, deeply concerned at the situation prevailing in Jerusalem as a result of the measures taken by Israel to change the status of the City, considered that Israel measures were invalid and called upon Israel to rescind all measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any action which would alter the status of Jerusalem. 72. In direct challenge to those resolutions, the Israel Prime Minister stood in the Knesset on 30 October 1967 to declare his Government’s master plan to build in the Old City of Jerusalem 1,500 housing units for the Jewish settlers from all over the world, I should say in this respect that there is not one single acre of land which is Jewish property in the Old City of Jerusalem. Arab land ownership there and in the surroundings of the Old City of Jerusalem is 100 per cent. 73, Everyone knows that Israel disregards those resolutions and continues to defy the wishes and decisions of the Organization which brought Israel into existence, We are bound to ask the reason for this. It is simply that Israel’s 75. Now we have reached a stage where the time element is vital, Arab delegations made their first journey to the fifth emergency special session and asked for the immediate withdrawal of all Israel armed forties from all occupied territories, back to the positions they had held prior to 5 June 1967. It was clear that the principle of immediate and complete withdrawal was upheld by all the membership of the General Asssembly of the United Nations. The Secretary-General said in the introduction to his annual report to the General Assembly: “There is the immediate and urgently challenging issue of the withdrawal of the armed forces of Israel from the territory of neighbouring Arab States occupied during the recent war. There is near unanimity on this issue, in principle, because everyone agrees that there should be no territorial gains by military conquest. It would, in my view, lead to disastrous consequences if the United Nations were to abandon or compromise this fundamental principle.“7 76. Withdrawal of Israel’s forces from all Arab territories has been the central point in all the statements of representatives in this Council and in the General Assembly. Every Member voted for the withdrawal of all Israel forces from the territories occupied by them as a result of the recent armed conflict. Nevertheless, the Organization and its membership were unable to protect the principle of withdrawal from being drowned in political argumentations alien to the merits of that fundamental principle. We therefore had to make a second urgent demand, for the sake of peace in our region and for the sake of the survhd of the United Nations. 77. We have come again this time with the same politica approach and with a great deal of awareness of the consequences should the United Nations fail again in its responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security q 78, The recent Arab summit conference held in Khartoum, convened to deal with this question, demonstrated one great fact. It demonstrated a high degree of responsibility by the Arab States towards peace and stability in their region and, undoubtedly, in the whole world. If the policy and spirit of the Khartoum conference can be adequately appreciated by this Council, and if appropriate decisions to remedy the situation can be taken, then peace in the Middle East will find its way. Otherwise any moderate approach or conciliatory attitude on the part of the Arabs in the ireatment of the present crisis will, I am afraid, prove to be far from realistic. The United Nations will then cease to be the direction towards wh&h we should 7 Ibid., Twenty-second Session, Supplement No. lA, para. 41. 79. Consultations have been going on, intensively and extensively, among the representatives on the Council and with various groups and members outside the Council, for the purpose of reaching an understanding regarding the decision which the Council ought to take as a result of its present deliberations. Our position in those consultations and in the discussions inside and outside this Council has been made clear. It is our strong and sincere conviction that the most fundamental requirement in the present crisis of the Middle East, for the creation of a state of peace, is undoubtedly the removal of Israel’s military occupation and the withdrawal of Israel forces from all the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 5 June. 80. Half of my country is now under Israel occupation as a result of Israel’s military conquest. On the west bank of the Jordan there are a million Jordanians who are under the persecution, torture and intimidation of the Israel military authorities. My people on the west bank of the Jordan have been ruined by the Israel occupation and every individual has suffered but is still determined to exist as a Jordanian. 8 1. The development on the west bank of the Jordan is second to none in the whole area. In the past nineteen years towns and cities have grown up, with modern homes, hotels, hospitals, schools, gardens, factories, and other establishments which are something that any nation could be proud of. Those towns and cities have been built up by the sheer hard work of men and women who took up employment in different parts of the world in order to be able to build their homes in the lands close to those from which their fathers had been ejected some nineteen years earlier. The great development achieved on the west bank is a tribute to the people of Jordan and their determination to live in peace and prosperity. We need only look at Arab Jerusalem, and see the great development there. Towns such as Nablus, Ramallah, Beit Hanina, Shuafat, Hebron, Bethlehem and Jericho are but examples of the wonderful and great achievement of our people. 82. In the economic field this prosperity and development in such a short period is beyond description. Speaking of education, on the west bank something like 40,000 to 50,000 men and women graduate every year. Most of them take up employment in different parts of the Arab world and contribute significantly to the general development that is taking place in the Middle East. Those men and women earn their living by hard work and determination, in order to sustain their families on the west bank and develop their country in a magnificent manner. 83. With those facts brought before the Council, can the United Nations-the Organization which was founded for the welfare of man-abstain from assuming its responsibility and allow the very life and existence of the million Jordanians to be shattered and destroyed as a result of the military conquest and subjugation by the force of arms? 85. But what is the main threat to peace and security in the area? What has been the main source of instability and frequent explosions, and what are the real guarantees for future peace? For many years the peoples of the region lived in peace and quiet. It has only been during the last twenty years that the world has felt the threat to peace coming from the Middle East. 86. The main threat to peace and security in our region has been caused by two main factors. The first has been the systematic Israel expansionist policy based on milhary aggression as the record of Israel clearly shows. It has been a record of systematic Israel expansion from one line to another at the expense of the Arab lands. 87. A record of further expansion in the demilitariized zones created by the United Nations; the repeated and organized Israel attacks on neighbouring Arab countries under the guise of retaliation or so-called punitive raids; the wiping out by Israel of several Arab villages and the mass slaughter of their inhabitants, particularly on the Jordanian front-lines; and two major, large-scale attacks and occupation of vast Arab territory, once in 1956 and once in 1967. These manifestations of Israel’s systematic policy of violence and steady expansion are the main explosions that occurred in the area and were each time described #as a threat to peace and security in the area and the world, as in fact they were. In all these cases Israel was the aggressor, and the neighbouring Arab countries were the targets and the victims. In allthese cases it was the security of the Arab countries, not of Israel, that was threatened and endangered. The United Nations knows this fact, and it has registered it in its annals and records. 88. For nineteen long years, hundreds of thousands or our innocent people have been living in camps far from their homes and native land on meagre international charities. For nineteen years our Arab borders were the targets of Israel aggressive military attacks and our citizens were killed and murdered in cold blood. For nineteen years our natural resources, property and income fell into Israel hands, For nineteen years we kept coming to this Council with one complaint after another against Israel’s aggression and belligerence. We maintained a normal approach and a peaceful conduct. It has been Israel that professed peace but exercised war and violence. If Israel now feels, and has felt, insecure it is only the feeling, very genuine and justified, that the policy of continued violence and perpetual state of aggression cannot make Israel acceptable osr its acquisition of war-spoils legalized. 89. The second factor causing the threat to peace and security in the area and the world is this: For twenty Years 90. What kind of peace can the Israelis envisage when Israel continues to ignore and to defy the United Nations resolutions on the problem created directly and exclusively by Israel in its very act of emergence into being? Israel spokesmen have no right to aspire for peace while refusing to accept its prerequisites. They cannot invoke the right of security and destroy, by their acts and position, the very basis of peace. 91. The Arabs, on the other hand, have not been a burden on peace. Despite a deep sense of continuing grievance, the Arabs have restrained themselves in act and deed as befits a nation born in the values and doctrine of peace. The only tangible-and perhaps not so tangible-expressions of belligerence they have made, throughout these twenty years, have been their dedicated and uncompromising attitude of refusal to give legitimacy to continued injustice and their refraining from recognizing an unjust and illegal situation 1 92. What threat is there in that for the peace in the world and in the area? The insecurity of Israel comes from within, from the sense of guilt, from the sense of Israel’s irrational dependence on a futile policy of violence and aggression, from the feeling that the international forces which have so far supported Israel’s policy have done SO either out of ignorance of the facts or under a system of Zionist manipulation which is not ljkely to continue with success. 93. The Arab attitude has not been the source of instability in the area, nor has it been opposed to a genuine concept of peace, It is, therefore, a false and unfounded argument by Israel spokesmen that withdrawal from occupied Arab territories is not a prescription for peace. Israel’s withdrawal from our territory is in itself necessary and right. It is also a precondition for peace in the area and in the world. It js the duty of the Security Council and the United Nations to bring this about, for it was initially in the United Nations that the original problem was born. And it is with the positive efforts by the United Nations to correct the mistake committed two decades ago, and to implement its principles and resolutions, that a just and lasting peace can be achieved. 94. World public opinion everywhere has supported the validity of our stand, a stand which offers a sound basis for a just peace. 96. The Arab representatives to the United Nations have made their position clear. My King, His Majesty King Hussein, advocated throughout the world and during his visits to various countries the just cause of our people. 97. We have nothing more to say. We, and our peoples, are therefore waiting for the result of your efforts.

I should like first of all, as I begin my statement, to dwell for a moment on one particular passage in the statement made by the Foreign Minister of Israel where he gave a striking example of the intransigence and truculence of the extremist and military circles in Israel, which have set in motion every conceivable means of propaganda throughout the world in an endeavour to gain acceptance for their territorial and other claims. According to him, some members of the Security Council are guilty of having prevented the Council from taking action against the Arab countries last May, when the latter were alleged to have been planning intervention and aggression against Israel. 99. As everyone knows, at that time we received an assurance through the Secretary-General that the Arab countries would not undertake any action calculated to endanger peace in the Middle East and did not intend to commit any act of aggression. Those countries have kept their word; they have done nothing. 100. The representative of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria was included in this accusation. But he did not know at that time-and I am sure the same was true also of the representative of the Soviet Union and other representatives-that large-scale aggression was being planned. On the other hand, those who had a more or less precise idea of the situation and knew, from accurate information received from sources in Israel as well as from sources of their own that Israel’s forces were preparing to strike, tried at the time to turn the feelings of the Security Council and its members, and against whom. 7 -against the future victims of the Israel aggression then being prepared. Therein lies the responsibility of those countries, and their representatives here, who have to answer the charge made before the CouncjI: they refused to act against the aggression being planned by the Israel representatives and by Israel’s military forces. 101. More than five months have passed since the Security Council last discussed this problem and failed to condemn Israel’s aggression against the neighbouring Arab States owing to the stubborn opposition of certain Western delegations, headed by the United States. 102, In view of the Security Council’s powerlessness to act, the General Assembly was convened in emergency 103. The present session of the Security Council comes at the end of a long series of consultations between the interested parties and the members of the Security Council, In particular there have been a number of private consultations and meetings between the non-permanent members of the Security Council, at which efforts have been made to find some common ground between the Afro-Asian and Latin American countries on the basis of the draft resolution submitted by the Latin American countries during the fifth emergency special session of the General Assembly.’ These efforts have culminated in nothing more than a consensus regarding the procedure to be followed-in particular the appointment of a special representative of the Secretary-General, with terms of reference defined on the basis of certain fundamental principles. The consultations failed, however, when the question arose of defining the terms of reference and the principles which would guide the special representative-and this in spite of the fundamental concession made by the non-aligned countries to take as the basis for their work and their efforts in the Security Council the draft resolution for which the Western Powers had voted during the emergency session of the General Assembly .9 104. At this point it is interesting to note that in the course of the fifth emergency special session, which was convened to deal with the problems of the Middle East, when it became clear that the draft resolution submitted by the Latin American countries had no chance of being adopted owing to the general political atmosphere prevailing in the region concerned, the United States of America and certain Western countries voted in favour of the draft. But now, when the Arab countries state, in the words of the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic, that: “In these consultations”-the recent consultations in which members of the Security Council took an active part-“we travelled a long way in an effort to meet all the points raised by those who were sincerely labouring to find a just and reasonable formula” /1373rd meeting, para. 73/, and when the Afro-Asian and the Latin American countries have prepared a document, both the substance and the wording of which are embodied in the draft resolution submitted by India, Mali and Nigeria (S/8227], the United States of America and some of its allies make it known-or are about to do so, as the very fact of submitting draft resolution S/8229 of 7 November indicates-that they are not in agreement with the principles and assertions expressed in the three-Power draft resolution introduced by India. Yet these are the very principles and assertions defined in the Latin American draft resolution submitted to the General Assembly. 8 Ibid, Fifth Emergency Special Session, Annexes, agenda item 5, document A/L.523/Rev.l. Also circulated as document S/8235. 9 Ibid., Annexes, agendo item 5, document A/L.522/Rev.3. “There is a structural difference between resolutions of the General Assembly which take the form of recom. mendations and which as such can be regarded as expressions of world opinion, and resolutions of (he Security Council which arc to form the basis of action,” [I 3 73rd meeting, para. 23 7. / 106. On the contrary, this explanation constitutes an indictment of the Western Powers themselves. The truth is that apart from the fact I have just outlined, which make!; lt clear that the Western countries were prepared to vote and did vote for this draft resolution when they were sure that it had little chance of being adopted by the General Assembly owing to the situation prevailing in the Middle East, it now appears that they do not want action to be taken on the basis of those principles as embodied in a recommendation for which they nevertheless voted. 107. Hence we are forced to conclude that, if the Latin American draft resolution had been adopted during the fifth emergency special session in June and July, the Western countries, and particularly the United States, would not have considered those recommendations a!; a basis for action. This is a strange idea of the role of the United Nations, 108. It would be dangerous for the United Nations, within its own organs, to apply a double standard in its policies, But,how else can we explain the following sentence in Ithe Latin American draft resolution submitted to the General Assembly and accepted by the Western Powers at that time? “1. Urgently requests: “(a) Israel to withdraw all its forces from all the territories occupied by it as a result of the recent conflict .” /S/8235.] This has now been changed into the following-and here I am quoting from the United States draft resolution just submitted to the Security Council: “Affirms that the fulfilment of the above Charter principles requires the achievement of a state of just and lasting peace in the Middle East embracing withdrawal cf armed forces from occupied territories . , . secure and recognized boundaries.“[S/8229.] 109. The only purpose of this wording from the United States draft resolution now before the Security Council is to make it possible for the occupying aggressor to remain in the territories where its troops are now installed. Hem it can only complicate matters. The substitution of the idea of “secure and recognized boundaries” for the words “withdraw . . . from all the territories”, definitely implies that the aggressor may decide to withdraw its troops at its own convenience. If this is not so, then the United States representative should give us an explanation. 111. Today we have heard the repeated and categorical statement by the Foreign Minister of Israel that he would accept nothing less than direct negotiations for the conclusion of new agreements under the threat of permanent occupation. Despite all the decisions of the United Nations, Israel considers the agreements concluded under United Nations auspices as null and void. 112. Yet the whole series of problems relating to the present crisis have always been connected with action by the United Nations; even the setting up of Israel was based on United Nations action, From the very beginning in 1948 up to the latest cease-fire resolution, the United Nations has played an important role. 113. At the same time, the present state of relations between the parties directly involved also demonstrates that the most realistic method of approaching a political settlement of the problems under dispute is through direct and active participation by the United Nations. The Organization’s participation cannot be made light of at a time when its role is more essential than ever. 114. At the present time, Israel’s insistence that direct negotiations are the only alternative and its attempts to impose such negotiations make it clear that what it wants is to drag out the problem indefinitely so as to cover up the want of a sincere desire for a peaceful political settlement. This demand for direct negotiations turns out to be a negation of all the agreements concluded up to the present time, a negation of negotiations of any kind. In these circumstances we must steadfastly oppose the attempts by the Israel Government to refuse the participation of the United Nations, to spurn its help and to repudiate its decisions. 115. While the United Nations has been reduced to inaction by such manoeuvres over the past five months, the situation in the Middle East has deteriorated considerably. Israel’s occupation of the Arab territories as a result of the aggression of 5 June has created an extremely explosive situation in the area and has given rise to growing tension which could lead to new armed outbreaks. The Israel army’s recent premeditated provocations in violation of the cease-fire resolutions have resulted in large-scale destruction. The havoc caused to the city oT Suez and the refineries there, which was organized by the Israel authorities, has made the situation in the area extremely tense. 116. The unreasonable delay in arriving at a solution to the problem of removing the consequences of Israel’s “Israel will continue to maintain in full the situation as it was established in the cease-fire agreements and will consolidate her position, in keeping with the vital needs of her security and development.“’ ’ 117. The deliberate delay in finding a solution to the problem of the Middle East keeps the existing tension alive and makes for a critical deterioration in the situation. By turning the United Nations into a powerless spectator of this frustrating situation, brought about in flagrant violation of the Charter and its principles, this delay does immense damage to the prestige of the United Nations in the eyes of world public opinion. The very role of the United Nations as an instrument of peace and security is called in question throughout the whole world. This could sow the idea in the minds of the Israel extremists and militarists that they can commit crimes with impunity and even encourage them to embark on more irresponsible acts still in the future. As the proverb goes “The more you have the more you want”. 118. But even if the United Nations were to be forced fnto inaction as a result of clever stratagems, it is difficult to believe that such an injustice would ever be accepted by the Arab peoples. The great Arab peoples have, over several thousands of years of history, suffered defeats yet have always emerged stronger and more vigorous than ever; but more important still they have been responsible for economic and cultural developments from which the world has greatly profited and for which it is greatly in their debt. 119. Still less could the Arab States tolerate the humiliation and the insult to the entire Arab race of seeing their soil under foreign occupation and their people expelled from the homes in which they have lived for countless generations. Contemporary history is full of examples Of nations which have risen up and reacted proudly against the provocations of foreign soldiery, We need only recall the history of the last few years to see that this is so. 120. The extreme state of tension now prevailing in the Middle East presents a very real threat to the peace and security of that region and to the peace of the world. It also represents a decided danger for the people of Israel themselves. During the last two decades, Israel’s extremist circles have by wars and aggressions succeeded three times in scoring some military victory, but the people of Israel have not gained peace thereby. In this age of national liberation of oppressed peoples, peace in the Middle East can only be achieved through the self-determination of peoples and the search for a just and peaceful solution to the thorny problems of this region which has suffered so much from the intervention of imperialist forces, both in 10 Quoted in English by the speaker. 121. The withdrawal of the aggressors’ troops to the positions they occupied on 4 June would be the first step and the basic prerequisite for a political settlement of all the other contentious questions; otherwise the aggressor would be participating in the settlement negotiations from a position of strength and would be able to use the usurped territories as bargaining counters. 122. The entire speech by the Foreign Minister of Israel which the Security Council has just heard was nothing more than a glorification of all the acts of aggression committed by Israel’s armies, backed by the attitude of the United States of America as expressed in its draft resolution. The Foreign Minister made it clear to anyone who would listen that the extremist circles in Israel have no intention of withdrawing so long as they can count on that backing. Accustomed as he is to enjoying privileges even in the United Nations, he complained at the Council’s decision to allow him to speak only when his turn came. This is symptomatic of the state of mind which has become characteristic of the Israel extremist circles he represents. 123. The People’s Republic of Bulgaria has always made it plain that no solution is possible without the withdrawal of the Israel troops. In his speech at the fifth emergency special session on 20 June 1967, the Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, Todor Jivkov, said, and I quote: “The main prerequisite for the solution of the Middle East problems at the present moment is the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the Israel troops from the occupied Arab territories. The continued seizure of those territories is nothing but a continuation of the aggression. The illegal presence of Israel troops in those areas is aimed at offering undeserved advantages to the aggressor; in point of fact, it fans its expansionist claims and places obstacles to the solution of the questions relating to the restoration and consolidation of peace in the Middle East.“l ’ 124. The immediate withdrawal of the aggressor’s troops from the occupied territory is even more essential in view 125. The elimination of all the consequences of the aggression will create a favorable atmosphere in which the situation can be brought back to normal, including the guaranteeing of free passage through the waterways of the region, in conformity with the requirements of contemporary international law. 126. It is clear that lasting peace and stability in tine Middle East cannot be ensured unless an effort is made to destroy the root cause of the tension which has prevailed in that part of the world for the last two decades, and by this I mean the solving of the problem of the Palestine refugees. I say solving, and not merely making a show of solving, as some would wish. Any lasting and just settlement of the political problem should unquestionably include a settlement of the situation of Palestine’s Arab population with due regard for their legitimate interests and on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions. Naturally this has nothing to do with those who have become refugees as a result of the recent conflict, since they have the right a!nd should have the opportunity to return automatically to their homes as soon as the occupying forces have withdrawn from all the occupied territory. 127. We cannot expect to see a lasting peace in the Middle East until these fundamental and urgent problems halve been solved. As long as the Israel troops remain in possession of all the territory occupied as a result of the recent conflict, and as long as the refugee problem continues to poison the atmosphere of that region, there can be no peace in the Middle East or any assurance of security in the world. 128. As was pointed out by the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic, Mr. Mahmoud Riad, the Arab countries have travelled a long way in an effort to meet the points raised by those labouring to find a just and reasonable solution to the problem of the Middle East, The non-aligned countries which are members of the Secur.itY Council have prepared a working paper based on the d&t resolution submitted by the Latin American countries at the fifth emergency special session, and this is new submitted as a draft resolution by India, Mali and Nigeria. It is now the duty of those countries, headed by the United States, which voted in favour of the Latin American draft resolution, to remain faithful to the commitment into which they entered at the emergency session as expressed by their vote. The beginning of a solution to the problems of the Middle East depends on them alone.

I call on the representative of India, who wishes to exercise the right of reply. 131. Mr, PARTHASARATHI (India): My delegation has listened with care to the statement made by the Foreign Minister of Israel. At this meeting I should like to comment only on one or two points. 132. The Foreign Minister of Israel has said that the three-Power draft resolution was drafted without any consultations with Israel. I should like to state quite categorically that in working out the draft the three Powers took hzto consideration not only the discussions and draft resolutions, formal and informal, during the emergency session and the twenty-second regular session of the General Assembly, but also the discussions among the permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council over the past several weeks. It has to be appreciated also that this draft was worked out by six members of the Council who had contacts with the various parties concerned. 133. As I said on 9 November in this Council, in working out our draft we had in mind the views of the other members of the Council as well as of the parties concerned. And as my colleague and friend, Mr. Adebo, the representative of Nigeria, said on 9 November: . . * I can say honestly and frankly that throughout our deliberations I was in touch with both parties ascertaining their views. However, I regret to say that at no time in the negotiations was I able to persuade either party to my own point of view, and that remains the position today.” [1373rd meeting, para. 109.1 CG 134. Similarly, my good friend the representative of Ethiopia stated in the same meeting that the three-Power draft won his delegation’s approbation not only because it was based on the Latin American draft resolution presented to the emergency session of the Generai Assembly, but also because the approach was, in his view, “a sound one and the principles involved were affirmed and maintained in reasonable balance”(ibid., para. ZOO]. 135. I now turn to another substantive point raised by the Foreign Minister of Israel. He has stated that the three- Power draft resolution prejudices bilateral talks between the Arabs and the Israelis. The aim of the three-Power draft 136. The representative of Israel has also referred to the position of my Government on India-Pakistan relations. I must state in all frankness that the two situations are completely different and have no bearing whatsoever on the question under discussion. The Foreign Minister of Israel, while comparing his Government’s stand with that of the Government of India, ignored-and I am sure he will be the first to appreciate this-the differing origins of the unfortunate situations as well as the divergent histories of relationships among States in different regions of the world. If, however, the Foreign Minister of Israel insists upon drawing parallels, he should remember the eminent practice of this Council, which, in 1965, insisted upon coupling the demand for a cease-fire with a call for withdrawal to positions previously held. Thereafter, it was possible for India and Pakistan, which had never interrupted their formal diplomatic relations, to negotiate at Tashkent with the help of the Soviet Union.

I have no other speakers on my list. As a result of informal consultations, it appears that members of the Council are agreed that the date for our next meeting on the Middle East situation should be Wednesday, 15 November 1967, at 10.30 a.m. If there is no objection, I shall take it that this proposal is adopted. The meeting rose at 1.10 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nationr publications,may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write tar United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications der Notions Unies sent en vente dons ler librairier et ler agencer depositairer du monde entier. Informer-vour ouprhr de votre librairie ou odresrez-vous or Nations Unier, Section der venter, New York ou Genive. coM0 coNs~wR PUBL~CACIONES DE LAS NA~IONES UN~DAS Los publicocioner de Ios Naciones Unidar ertbn en vcnta en libreriar y cosos dirtribuidoras en todar partes del mundo. Consulte •I su librero o dirijore a: Naclanss Unidor, Secci6n de Ventar, Nueva York a Ginebra. Litho in U.N. Price: $U.S. 0.50 (or equivalent in other currencies) 35$11-January 1971~2,100