S/PV.1504 Security Council

1 thank the representative of the United Kingdom for the kind words he addressed to me,

My delegation has joined in supporting the resolution that the Council has just adopted in the interest of ending the violence that is seriously impeding the efforts towards establishment of peace in the Middle East. As I indicated in my statement on 14 August [ISOOth meeting], the essential task of the Security Council and of the parties at this time is to create and maintain an atmosphere favourable to the success of the diplomatic efforts now in *progress looking towards agreement on a just and durable peace, to which the representative of the United Kingdom has just so eloquently referred. 15. AS he has pointed out, violence along cease-fire lines in the Middle East has unfortunately been increasing in recent months. The inevitable result is that passions are height. 16. In several respects, the resolution. that we have adopted is not what we should have preferred. It does not deal in as balanced a fashion as we should have wished with the cycle of provocation and reprisal which are responsible for extending the violence to that frontier. Nevertheless, the resolution does make clear the Council’s strong dis. approval of all violations of the cease-fire, from wherever they may emanate. The resolution refers not only to acts of military reprisal by one of the parties but also to violent incursions launched across the frontier from the territory of the other party. Thus the operative paragraphs of the resolution reaffirm strict obligations on all concerned to avoid violations of the cease-fire. 17. We would also have much preferred that there bl: no reference in the resolution to the Israel-Lebanon Armistice Agreement because its status and continued validity is contested by the parties concerned. However, we do not consider that its being recalled in this resolution prejudices the position of either party in regard to it and we have therefore agreed that it might be referred to along with the cease-fire which both parties have accepted. 18. Of course what the Council is seeking here and elsewhere in the Middle East, as clearly set forth in its resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, is a just and lasting peace and not merely restoration of armistice situations. We must continue to pursue that overriding /goal and to move beyond armistice agreements and cease-fires ta genuine peace.

The delegation of Colombia voted in favour of the draft resolution submitted for the Council’s considera. tion, precisely, because the terms of the resolution entirely correspond to the views it has expressed on the matter. 20. My delegation expressed condemnation of any act’s ef reprisal and opposition to any unilateral and arbitrary punitive operation. 21. My delegation also stated that violations of the cease-fire under any circumstances whatever, encouraged or committed by either regular or irregular forces, are condems nable, that they are contrary to the interests of peace and alien to a final and just solution of the problems in the Middle East.

To the Finnish delegation the unanimous decision just taken by the Security Couocii is cause for satisfaction. We are well aware that long and delicate negotiations were necessary to achieve this result. We wish to express our appreciation to those who were most immediately involved in those negotiations, Only by acting unanimously, as it has done today, can the CoUrrcil 31. We interpret this resolution as follows: we believe it covers all the violations of the cease-fire reported in this debate, particularly by the provisions found in the second operative paragraph and the relevant parts of the fourth. 32. MY last words must be to express appreciation to the representatives who participated in the consultations which enabled US to arrive at this unanimous decision in the Security Council, and to the representative of Lebanon in particular. 33’. Mr. AZZOUT (Algeria) (translated from French): The Algerian delegation, in its concern to strengthen the authority of the Council, voted in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/9410. 34. Naturally, my delegation would have liked the Council to go beyond the warning it addressed to Israel in paragraph 3 of its resolution 262 (1968)-in other words, that it should have taken concrete measures to put its decisions into effect. The Security Council once again unequivocally condemns the policy of reprisals systematically pursued by the Tel Aviv authorities. It may be noted that this resolution is, from end to end, addressed solely to Israel and that the interpretations which the States allied with Israel have not failed to provide are and remain outside the resolution. It is true that attempts have always been made in this Council to put the Palestine national liberation movement in the dock. Is it not enough to prejudice the legitimate rights of a people but ‘lust you try to thwart their rebirth as well? The Palestine people feel in no way concerned, directly qy indirectly, by the resolutions of an Organization which moreover-need I remind you? - is responsible for this tragedy. 24. I should not conclude my statement without paying a special tribute to the representative of Lebanon for the restrained and constructive manner in which he dealt with a question which understandably is a matter of the most serious concern for his Government. The consideration of this question has clearly shown the respect and sympathy which the Council has for the efforts of the Government of Lebanon to ensure security for its people, whose wish to live in peace is well known to us all,

At the 1502nd meeting on Monday, 18 August, I set forth the views of my delegation on the questions now before the Security Council. 26. In the light of that statement, the reasons for the vote my delegation has just cast in favour of the draft resolution submitted to the Council might be considered to have been explained. 35. It was on this understanding-minus the interpretation of the text given by the representative of the United States-that the Algerian delegation voted in favour of the resolution. 27. Nevertheless, in accordance with specific instructions given to me, it is my duty clearly to state the meaning my delegation attaches to certain provisions of the resolution adopted; these are provisions which might be opened to different and perhaps even conflicting interpretations regarding their scope and significance. I refer particularly to operative paragraph 2 and to the expression “other grave violations of the cease-fire”, in operative paragraph 4. 36. Mr, SHAHI (Pakistan): I have asked for the floor in order to explain the position of my delegation on the resolution which has just been adopted unanimously by the Security Council. 37. My delegation has consistently maintained that any assertion by Israel of the so-called right of reprisal against Arab States is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and to all rules of international law. While, therefore, we have supported the resolution in document S/9410, my delegation reserves its position on operative paragraph 2, which “Deplores all violent incidents in violation of the cease-fire”. Our reservation stems from the same considerations that I set forth in my statement at the 1407th meeting in relation to operative paragraph 3 of resolution 248 (1968), the first sentence of which is identical with operative paragraph 2 of the present resolution. I stated then: 28. The Security Council, by earlier decisions which are still as much in force and valid today as when they were adopted, has unequivocally established the obligations of the States which are parties to the conflict and defined their responsibilities, especially with regard to the scrupulous observance of the cease-fire, truce or armistice. 29. Pursuant to those decisions, any breach of the cease-fire or any act violating it implies disobedience to the high authority of the Council. Moreover, each of these acts adds new grave elements to a situation which in itself is grave enough already. 30. Therefore, all such acts violating the cease-fire, truce “In the view of my delegation, the inclusion of this or armistice, whatever their source, are equally to be paragraph does not in any way imply that the sporadic I further said: “We cannot permit an interpretation of operative paragraph 3”-that is, of resolution 248 (1968)-“that would, in the event of any future incident, enable Israel to claim the freedom to launch any military attacks against Jordan or any of its other neighbours,” (Ibid., para. 62.1 38. Again on 28 March 1969, I stated: “We fully realize that the dictates of realism, balance and restraint cannot be disregarded. But it is not balance to equate the grave violations of the cease-fire committed by Israel with the actions of the Arab resistance organizations.” [1468th meeting, para. 53.J That remains our position. 39. In conclusion, I should like to support the eloquent plea of Lord Caradon, the representative of the United Kingdom, for a renewed effort to promote a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. 40. I have confined my remarks to the issue before the Council, but I can hardly conclude without referring to the grief and the anguish that all of us have suffered as a result of the extensive damage caused by arson to the Al Aqsa Mosque, one of the holiest shrines of Islam. To that issue of transcendental importance I shall address myself at the appropriate moment.

The Security Council has just adopted a resolution in which it condemned Israel’s aggressive actions against Lebanon and issued another warning to Israel. The consideration of this question in the Security Council and the decision adopted by the Council are yet another moral and political defeat for Israel, demonstrating the bankruptcy and hopelessness of Tel Aviv’s adventurist, militarist course, 42. It is no accident that, during the discussion in the Security Council, Israel’s actions against Lebanon were unanimously condemned by all the members of the Council. Even those who tried to shield the aggressor and place his criminal acts on the same level as the legitimate liberation struggle of the Arab people, even those delegates could not bring themselves to deny Israel’s guilt and expressed their censure of its action. 43. This is an extremely serious political event. It indicates that the extremist policy of the present Israeli Government is increasingly accentuating its international isolation. The persistence of the Israeli ruling circles in their aggressive policy, Israel’s sabotage of a political settlement in the Middle East based on the well-known Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967-all this is fraught with dangerous consequences for the cause of peace. 45. The decision adopted by the Security Council toda:, contains a number of minimum provisions: condemnation of Israel for its aggressive actions against Lebanon and ,a stern warning to the aggressor not to continue such actions. 46. The Soviet delegation shares the view of those who consider that it would have been in the interests of the struggle against Israeli aggression and of the achievement of a political settlement in the Middle East based on the well-known Security Council resolution for the Security Council to adopt a stronger decision. Nevertheless, the Soviet delegation considers that the resolution adopted juslt now is a necessary step. It serves the interests of the struggle against Israeli aggression and may promote a political settlement in the Middle East.

No other member of the Council is entered on my list of speakers, 48. If no other member of the Council wishes to speak, I shall call on the representative of Lebanon.

By coming before the Council Lebanon did not subscribe to Dante’s admonition when he said, “All hope abandon, ye who enter here,” We manifested our trust in and our reliance on the Council in the several statements we made here when the Council dealt with the Israeli premeditated attack on the international airport of Beirut in late December 1968, and when it dealt with the present case. In both cases we had hoped that the Council would, in the light of the heavy record of Israel’s acts of aggression against its Arab neighbours, take effective measures to deter it from its recalcitrant acts, to curb its unbridled designs and expansionist ambitions. In both cases the Csuncil stopped short of adopting those measures. Ia their absence Israel can feel free, as the representative of Pakistan just said, to believe that it can continue, without punishment, its aggressive acts and its threats of the use of force. 50. The Council assumes a grave responsibility in that respect. Our requests and warnings should not go unheeded for the sake of achieving unanimity amongst members of the Council and of preventing any division at a time when quiet diplomacy is pursued in an earnest search for means to achieve a final settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But quiet diplomacy, whether bilateral or quadrilateral, has been slow and is in fact still slow in coming to grips with the explosive situation of the Middle East. While diplomacy was apparently on holiday, many grave developments took place in the Middle East as a consequence of repeated Israeli aggressive acts. 51. Israel persists in levelling unfounded charges against Lebanon. Those charges have not been substantiated. We reiterate what we have already stated on many occasions here in the Council: that these alleged incidents could very easily have been verified had Israel accepted that United “There is only token United Nations observer representation on the Lebanese side and none at all on the Israeli side. It has not been possible, therefore, for me to provide the Council with accounts of incidents in that sector, including the most recent ones which have given rise to the present meetings of the Council. This lack of verified information cannot but affect adversely the consideration of the question in that body.” (S/9393. J 52. We take it that the Secretary-General had in mind the incidents alleged by Israel to have taken place on its side of the armistice line. As for the massive and premeditated air attack against several villages in southern Lebanon, .there was an open opportunity for everyone to verify it. Such a verification was not even necessary. The Israeli representative admitted that attack in writing, and here in the Council. Furthermore, in our reply td the Secretary General’s letter of 16 August 1969 we stated emphatically that we still adhere to the Armistice Agreement and honour our obligations under it. The observers of the Mixed Armistice Commission continue to be stationed on our territory. We stated that should the need arise Lebanon would agree to the strengthening of the Commission machinery. In his evasive reply of 25 August 1969 the representative of Israel claimed that the armistice period “is now behind us”. (S/9393/Add.2.] Israel cannot resort to this fallacious argument that Lebanon has declared war on Israel according to the classical way of decIaring war. That allegation has no substance in fact; it exists only in the minds of the Israeli authorities; it is motivated only by their bad faith. The Armistice Agreement remains valid. 53. The Council has in its wisdom adopted the resolution contained in document S/9410. If by its unanimous adoption all our hopes were not realized, at least some of them were. Our delegation is gratified that the resolution has been adopted unanimously. Another reason for our satisfaction is that the Council has in the second paragraph of the preambular part taken into consideration Lebanon’s complaint contained in document S/9383 dated 11 August 1969 and rejected the counter-complaint of the representative of Israel contained in document S/9387 of 12 August 1969. As some representatives of the Council have already stated in one form or another, the resolution must be read in the light of that paragraph, It constitutes the factual and juridical basis for the main paragraph. We are also gratified that the resolution recalIs Security Council resolution 262 (1968), which was also unanimously adopted by the Council following the premeditated and massive air attack against the airport of Beirut by Israeli aircraft, 55. I would like here to put on record what our esteemed Secretary-General mentioned in the Introduction to his annual report (A/67OIfAdd.I, para. 43],2 covering the period 16 June 1966 to 15 June 1967, part V, paragraph 43: “On the other hand there has been no indication either in the General Assembly or in the Security Council that the validity and applicability of the Armistice Agreements have been changed as a result of the recent hostilities or of the war of 1956; each agreement, in fact, contains a provision that it will remain in force ‘until a peaceful settlement between the parties is achieved’. Nor has the Security Council or the General Assembly taken any steps to change the pertinent resolutions of either organ relating to the Armistice Agreements or to the earlier cease-fire demands, The Agreements provide that by mutual consent the signatories can revise or suspend them. There is no provision in them for unilateral termination of their application, This has been the United Nations position all along and will continue to be the position until a competent organ decides otherwise.” 54. We are also pleased with the Council’s recalling the Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949 between Israel and Lebanon. That Agreement, in our view and in the view of an abundant body of opinion here in the United Nations, is still alive and valid. Israel has made many attempts to free itself of its obligations under that Armistice Agreement. On 7 June 1967, an Israeli plane was shot down over the Syrian territory adjacent to Lebanon, and its pilot, bailing out, landed safely on Lebanese territory. Israel requested his release, through the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission. On that occasion, that is 9 June, Israel inquired df the Government of Lebanon, through the same channels, whether or not it considered the Armistice Agreement to be still valid. The Lebanese Government in its 56. The obligation of Israel to respect its adherence to the Armistice Agreement is supported also by Article 103 of the Charter. That Article stipulates, as we all know, that [The speaker continued in French.] “There was an Armistice Agreement with Lebanon. On 5 June, Lebanon declared war on Israel by the old, classical method of a declaration of war. Under international law, the declaration of war conclusively terminates armistice agreements; for this reason, there is no longer any legal framework for our relations with Lebanon and we should like to have a peace arrangement with it.” [The speaker continued in English.] “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Natidns under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” 57. I am sorry, Mr. President and members of the Council, to have to detain you a little further, but there are certain points which my delegation and Government felt we should put on the record of the Security Council, 58. In the discussion today we have heard some mention of cease-fire lines. My delegation does not subscribe to that expression. I think that there has already been a debate in the Security Council about that matter, and Lord Caradon, the representative of the United Kingdom, will recall that the opinion of the Security Council is that there is no such thing as a cease-fire line; there is a cease-fire, The cease-fire is a call from the Security Council to the parties concerned to desist from firing; it is a prohibition upon them, that they not resort to warring. The cease-fire is not, in our opinion, a substitution of the Armistice Agreement, It does not supersede it. The contrary is true. The jurisprudence of the United Nations confirms this point of view. In 1949, when the Security Council adopted its resolution (72 (1949)/ of 11 August of that year, the principle was established, and it has subsequently been upheld. Our esteemed Under-Secretary-General, Dr. Ralph Bunche, who was then the Acting Mediator, can testify for this point of view. 59. The resolution just adopted by the Council stipulates, in operative paragraph 1, a condemnation of “the premeditated air attack by Israel on villages in Southern Lebanon, in violation of its obligations under the Charter and Security Council resolutions”. Our delegation is satisfied with that language, although we had hoped it would reflect the language used in resolution 262 (1968). 60. Nevertheless, we have our reservations about operative paragraph 2, which “deplores all violent incidents in violation of the cease-fire”. The cease-fire, which was accepted by Lebanon, was a call by the Council to the warring parties of that time to cease firing. Lebanon has respected its obligations un,der the Armistice Agreement and the cease-fire; it has not taken any action to breach the cease-fire. On two occasions Israel has undertaken massive military acts to breach the cease-fire: by attacking the International Airport of Beirut and, recently, by attacking seven villages in Southern Lebanon. 61. In operative paragraph 3, the Council “deplores the extension of the area fighting”. We agree with the Council in its deploring of the extension of the area of fighting because, by its attack against Lebanon, Israel is extending the area of fighting. 62. The Lebanese Government, as we have said before, has done and is doing all in its power to maintain conditions of 63. In conclusion, Mr. President, I wish to thank you and those members of the Council who have helped in bringing about the adoption of this resolution, which, althou& it does not fully satisfy us, at least meets some of the points we have made here in the Council,

The Ilext speaker on my list is the representative of Israel, on wham I now call.

I am obliged, at this concluding meeting of the Security Council’s debate, to draw the Security Council’s attention to the sombre realities of tlte situation. Even as the’council pursued its deliberations and member States consulted on an appropriate form of words for a draft resolution, armed attacks against Israel were continuing from Lebanon, in flagrant violation of the cease-fire. Israeli towns and villages were being sheIled, and the lives of innocent civilians put in jeopardy. 66. In the last three days alone, three serious acts of aggression have taken place. 67. On 23 August at approximately 10 p-m, two Israeli villages-Dafna and Shear Yashuv in Upper Galilee-were attacked from Lebanese territory by 130millin~e~tre Katyusha rocket fire. 68. Yesterday, at approximately 2.30 a.m., the village of Kefar Yuval north of Qiryat Shemona was attacked with bazookas and small arms from Lebanese territory. 69. Again, at approximately 3.1 f; a.m., bazooka and small arms fire was directed from Lebanese territory ou the village of Metula. 70. It is regrettable that the resolution now adopted joins a long list of similar texts which have reflected, again and again, the chronic disability of the Security Council to address itself to the Israel-Arab conflict with the necessary equity and effectiveness. The facts of the situation discussed by the Council are unmistakably clear. In recent months Lebanese territory has become a base for terror operations against Israel. The last few weeks have witnessed a grave intensification of these attacks, directed primarily against the civilian population of Israel. Terror warfare elf this kind is an old method employed by the Arab States, hl violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, throughout the twenty-year Arab war on Israel. 71. Faced with the duty to protect its citizens from armed attack, the Government of Israel resorted, on 11 August, to its inherent and inalienable right of self-defence and took 72. These facts have been fully confirmed by published statements made on behalf of the joint command of the terror organizations; they have been freely announced by Lebanese personalities and the Lebanese press, widely reported by international media of information, and are fully established by many eyewitnesses of unimpeachable integrity. The Lebanese representative has made only perfunctory attempts to question these facts, and when he does question them, as he did today, he finds himself at odds with reality. 73. For instance, according to the Beirut daily Al Nahar of 18 August, 42.4 per cent of the Lebanese citizens questioned in a special Gallup polI consider the presence of saboteur groups on Lebanese soil and their operations against Israel as the cause for Israel’s action on 11 August. 74. The resolution of the Security Council inexplicably ignores these facts. A number of members of the Council have condemned unequivocally the armed attacks carried out from Lebanon against Israel, and rejected the Lebanese Government’s denial of responsibility for violations of the cease-fire. However, the resolution, although it proscribes all violent incidents in violation of the cease-fire-and, therefore, obviously the armed attacks by irregular forces from Lebanon-fails to single out those attacks for strong and specific censure, On the other hand, it does censure the Israel defence action against those attacks. 75. Now, such a double standard may encourage the aggressor. It will strengthen the defender in the opinion that the Security Council is, unfortunately, unable to recognize the defender’s legitimate rights, whatever the understanding, and indeed knowledge, of some of its members may be. 76. Matters have reached such a point that even a formal reference in the preamble of the resolution to the Lebanese letter to the Council cannot be balanced by a similar reference to the Israeli letter; and at the same time room is found in the preamble to recall the ghost of the armistice regime, nullified by the Arab refusal to respect it and finally voided by Arab aggression. The defects of the resolution are further expressed in the fact that, while terror organizations and the Lebanese press and Lebanese leaders have openly admitted that Israel’s action was directed against saboteur encampments, the resolution speaks of reprisal on Lebanese villages; and the exclusion at Arab insistence of a direct and explicit call by the Security Council to the parties to observe the cease-fire is a striking example of the resolution’s inadequacy. 77. Here I would observe that my Government’s reluctance to invite the Security Council to consider Israeli grievances flows from considerations such as these and not from those repeatedly alleged by Arab spokesmen, including the representative of Lebanon, and their supporters. Members of the United Nations and the representatives in the Council who know of the high esteem and personal friendship in which we hold them will undoubtedly 78. The difficulties which the Security Council faces in producing balanced, equitable, realistic resolutions on the Israel-Arab conflict are becoming a matter of increasingly grave concern to the Council itself and to all to whom the ideals of the United Nations Charter are dear. These internal difficulties, however, do not affect basic tenets of law and justice, and their unhappy results cannot be interpreted as prejudicing the legitimate rights of a State which has been continuously resisting implacable aggression for more than two decades, Surely it cannot be expected that any sector of the cease-fire line would remain undefended, any village or town left open to attack, and the security of a single Israeli civilian or soldier sacrificed or the aggressor allowed to go unpunished, because of a text resulting from such failings. There is no place for any illusions concerning Israel’s determination to resist all aggression and to agree to supplant the cease-fire with nothing less than true, lasting peace. The persistent refusal by the Arab States to recognize Israel’s rights and terminate their lengthy war on Israel may well have been nurtured by some such illusions and by the tendency to accept propaganda slogans as a substitute for real understanding. For example, Arab aggression against Israel since 1948 has been fed on the slogan that the Jewish people returning to their homeland are strangers. In fact no people in the world has proven its attachment to its land throughout the ages with greater strength, dedication and sacrifice than the people of Israel. Arab aggression has sought desperately to vindicate itself by the slogan of the alleged injustice to the Palestinian Arab refugees. In reality the only difference between the Arab refugees and an almost equal number of Jewish refugees from the Arab States is that the latter, being an integral part of the Jewish people, have been accepted and fully integrated in the Jewish State while the Arab refugees, for political reasons, have been abandoned by their brethren, and many still live on international charity. 79. The spurious claim that Arab terror warfare is a consequence of the refugee problem would be no different from a suggestion that the Israel Government should have organized and waged warfare against the Arab States because of the destitute Jewish refugees from Arab lands who had fled to Israel. Today Arab warfare looks for additional succour in the slogan of strife against Israeli occupation and of an alleged movement of national resistance, ignoring that there have never been agreed boundaries between Israel and its neighbours, that the present cease-fire lines result from Israel’s repulse of an all-Arab attempt in 1967 to destroy it, and that the terror warfare carried on from the Arab States at present is a continuation of a method of harassment resorted to by the Arab States for no less than two decades. It is a method of aggression openly decided upon, organized and conducted by the Arab Governments by means of irregular forces specially trained in the contemptible pursuit of indis- 80. The new fashionable Arab slogan, that Israel can be forced to retreat from its legitimate objectives of peace and ,iecurity by a war of attrition, belongs to the same trash-can as similar flourishes of bellicosity in the past. A people that has resisted attrition by history’s overpowering storms for 3,000 years will not be weakened by another hour of trial. On the contrary, in the dangers and difficulties of the present they are already finding additional strength, resilience and inspiration-even as Arab aggression continues, and the people of Israel pursue their work of construction and creation. It is time, for their own good and for that of their people, that the Arab Governments realized that violence against Israel is today as futile as it has been in the past and that only real peace can bring happiness to both Arab and Israeli. Indeed, escapist subservience to the slogans of propaganda and the refusal of the leaders to face the truth have only brought disaster to the Arab States and catastrophe to -their peoples. 81. It is regrettable that Lebanon as well should have entered on this path and brought about an extension of the area of fighting. It is regrettable, yet perhaps not entirely surprising, for as far back as May 1967 Lebanon made it clear that it identified itself entirely with the campaign of aggression that was being launched at the time against Israel under the aegis of Egypt. On 30 May the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Lebanon declared in the Security Council: “Lebanon supports this exercise by the United Arab Republic of its sovereign rights over the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba. We still stand by the United Arab Republic. . . . In a total war the Arabs will use all means to defeat their enemy” /13#4th meeting, paras. 18 and 211. 82. The debate here and the Security Council resolution are diplomatic events which, like similar ones preceding them, regrettably are of little effect in efforts to resolve the Middle East conflict. This episode is now over. Lebanon and Israel are left, however, to live with each other as neighbours. They will continue to have to grapple with the realities of the security situation and the duty of every government to protect the lives and property of its citizens. 83. Israel’s policy will continue to be scrupulous observance of the cease-fire, Lebanon will continue to face the question whether it will abide by its obligations under the cease-fire. It cannot evade a decision whether to allow its territory to remain a base of aggression from which armed attacks are being launched against Israel or to take effective measures to put an end to these attacks. On this decision and on the measures the Lebanese authorities will adopt to terminate violations of the cease-fire from its territory will depend whether tranquillity will prevail on the border or whether the armed attacks will continue, leaving Israel with no alternative but to defend itself against them. Indeed, only faithful observance of the cease-fire can bring us closer to the objective which should be common to us all: true, just and lasting peace. 86. The Council has no doubt heard that the representa tive of Israel was clearly making allegations about new incidents, which he claims, have taken place as a result of people, as he again claims, crossing from the Lebanese border. The representative of Israel said this af’ter the Chairman of the delegation of Lebanon had informed members of the Council of formal threats th,at the Government of Israel has levelled against Lebanon o~ver the last forty-eight hours. What the representative of Israel seems to be proposing to the Council is this: he will/ level accusations against Lebanon in order to prepare in the shortest time possible another wanton attack against Lebanon. It is my delegation’s duty to draw the atknlion of the Council to that fact. 87. Even as he was about to end his statement, the representative of Israel said that the reaction of Isratel will depend on the measures that Lebanon will adopt. That is, no decision adopted by the Security Council, no warning, no directive will be heeded by Israel. He was just informing the members of the Council that he would reserve for himself and his Government the right to react and thle right to make the adoption of reprisals a norm of international law. 88. We again express regret that the Council did not see fir to take more effective measures at this stage lef its consideration of Lebanon’s complaint against Israel. More effective measures would put an end to the type Of statement that the representative of Israel so likes to make-although such statements would not harm anyone if it were not for the certainty that the Government of ISraeI is preparing for another attack on Lebanon. That is a yeI)’ serious matter that the members of the Council should bear in mind. 89. Again, the representative of Israel referred to the Armistice Agreements by calling them “the gllO!;t ef Armistice Agreements”. My delegation has on many eeca. sions put its views on record as far as the Armistice Agreements are concerned, I do not think that there is s need to emphasize further our position in that regard, but we would have this to say: We consider that the SeeluntY Council, in adopting its resolution today and in recalling in that resolution the Armistice Agreement between Lebarron and Israel, pronounced itself to the effect that it considers the Lebanon-Israeli Armistice Agreement to be still ‘valid and applicable, and no other interpretation will be accepted by my delegation. 91. Above and beyond all these considerations and above and beyond the terror of this debate and in another demonstration of our good faith to the members of the Council, my delegation wishes, as the Council is about to conclude its consideration of our complaint against Israel, to submit-for a better understanding and a full appreciation of our position-the following statement, which I shall make in French. [The speaker continued in French.] 92. Above and beyond all the considerations and all the arguments which have been advanced in the course of these discussions, I should like respectfully to ask the distinguished members of the Security Council to ponder on the quite exceptional case of Lebanon. 93. Lebanon is a small country which, at home, has fraternal and peaceful co-operation among the different communities composing it and, abroad, is one of the countries most open to the world, to all that is human and universal. This small country is on the edge of the Palestinian tragedy, whose dire repercussions it suffers at the political, military, economic and social levels. There are 300,000 Palestinian refugees living on our territory, whom we cannot repatriate and whom, for humanitarian, political, moral and fraternal reasons, we cannot drive out of our territory. If some of these refugees or their brothers see that, after all the trials they have endured, nobody has yet been able to ensure their exercise of the rights which the international community has so often recognized, including the right to return to their homes, and if they try to exercise that right directly, to take the law into their own hands and, in short, to apply the resolutions repeatedly adopted by the highest international bodies, Lebanon cannot prevent them from doing so. 94. Nor can Lebanon always prevent all their activities. If, because of this situation, the Lebanese population has to be exposed to bombing, and particularly with napalm, the result will be that this country, which is in no way responsible for the unleashing of the tragedy or for the turn it has taken, may find not qnly its internal and external security but also its national unity in jeopardy. 95, I hope these considerations will be constantly borne in mind by each member of the Security Coyncil. TO be sure, it is easy to adopt a resolution, as the Security C~uncti has just done, whose wording seems satisfactory from the technical standpoint; but we must get to the bottom of the situation, foresee all its possible consequences and avoid ._

I call on the representative of Israel.

I have no intention at all to engage in a debate with the representative of Lebanon. He painted here a touching picture of a little country. I should like to assure him that we ask of his little country pnly one little thing: abide by your international obligations, stop armed attacks against us, and there will be tranquillity on the border.

I call on the representative of Lebanon.

The 300,000 refugees are in Lebanon because of- Israel. That is the only reply I wish to make. 101, The PRESIDENT (transzated from Spanish): I should be grateful if representatives would help us, if possible, to hasten-the conclusion of the debate. 102. I call on the representative of Israel.

I have only one observation on the last remark of the representative of Lebanon. We are fully aware of the presence of a number of refugees from Palestine on Lebanese soil, The Lebanese Government is undoubtedly aware of the fact that in Israel there are about 600,000 refugees-Jewish refugees from Arab States. ’ 104. The’PRE%IDENT (translated from Spanish): The Council has concluded its consideration of the item submitted for its consideration in the past few days. Therefore, I shall now adjourn the meeting. The meeting rose at 6.05 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUELlCATlONS United Nations publicationr,may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult yaw bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sates Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications der Notions Unier sent en vente dans les librairies et ler ogencer dCpositairer du monde entier. Informer-vour auprbs de votre librairie ou adresrez-vous b: Nations Unies, Section der ventes, New York ou Genive. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicocioner de las Nocionar Unidar sstdn en venta en librerior Y caras distribuidorar en todor porter del mundo. Conrulte a w librera o dirijare a: Nacioner Unidos, Scccidn de Vantar, Nueva York D Ginebro. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 0.50 (or equivalent in other currencies) 82205-December 1972-2850 .