S/PV.1582 Security Council

This is not the first time that the Security Council, on the initiative of the Arab States, is considering the question of the arbitrary measures taken by the Israeli occupation authorities in the Arab city of Jerusalem. In the more than four years that have elapsed since the beginning of Israel’s aggression in the Middle East and the capture of the Arab city of Jerualem by Israeli troops, the Security Council and the General Assembly have considered this question several times and have adopted decisions strongly condemning Israel for its attempts to annex or appropriate that city. In these decisions, the United Nations has unreservedly called upon Israel to desist from any actions designed to alter the status and the Arab character of that city. Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/l 582) I. Adoption of the agenda. 2. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 13 September 1971 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10313); Reports of the Secretary-General (S/8052, S/8146, S/9149 and Add.1, S/9537 and S/l0124 and Add.1 and 2). Adoption of the agenda 4. This clear and well-defined position adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly on the question of Jerusalem is fully in accord with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the rules of international law and the modern sense of justice of the peoples. This position of the United Nations is based on the solid foundation of the generally recognized principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by the use of force or by war is inadmissible. This principle is the basis of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 concerning a peaceful political settlement in the Middle East, which was adopted by the Council in connexion with Israel’s aggression against the Arab countries. The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East: (0) Letter dated 13 September 1971 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10313); (b) Reports of the Secretary-General (S/8052, S/8146, S/9149 and Add.1, S/9537 and S/10124 and Add.1 and 2) I. The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the Council’s previous decision (1579th meeting] I shall, with the consent of the Council, invite the representatives of Jordan, Egypt and Israel to take places tit the Security Council table in order to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. 5. This principle was subsequently confirmed by the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth anniversary session in its resolution on the situation in the Middle East [resolution 2628 (XXV}], in the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security [resolution 2734 (XXV)] and in a number of other documents adopted by the Assembly at that session. At ihe invitation of the President, Mr. B, Tot&an (Jordan), Mr. M. H. El-Zayyat (Egypt) and, later, Mr. Y. Tekoah (Israel) took places at the Security Council table. 6. The defiant and negative attitude of Israel towards the decisions of the United Nations on the question of Jerusalem and the situation in the Middle East clearly reveals the expansionist and predatory character of the aggressive policy of the ruling circles in Tel Aviv towards the whole Arab world.

I shall next invite the representatives of Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber in order to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, on the understanding that they will be 8. The facts and the evidence presented to the Council by the representatives of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and other Arab States and the official information contained in the numerous reports by the Secretary-General on the situation in Jerusalem testify irrefutably to the fact that Israel, in disregard and in defiance of the decisions of the United Nations and in blatant violation of the generally recognized rules of internationa1 law, is pursuing a policy of pillage and arbitrary rule, of violence and mockery with regard to the Arab population in the Arab part of Jerusalem which they have occupied and in the other Arab territories which they have seized. The Israeli occupation authorities are striving to drive the Arabs out of Jerusalem in order to change the national composition of that city and the other occupied Arab lands, to Israelize Jerusalem and the Arab lands and to alter their status by force. 9. The facts show that the Israeli leaders have officially adopted a policy aimed at annexing Arab Jerusalem to the Israeli part of that city and to this end they are taking any measures they can to bind this illegally seized Arab city to Israel’s economy and way of life. They do not show the least sign of wishing to settle the question of the withdrawal of Israeli troops from that foreign city and from all the Arab territories occupied by Israel. On the contrary, Israel is working to put down roots and consolidate its position in Arab Jerusalem, to surround it with a ring of Jewish housing constructed on Arab land, and to swallow up that city to serve the ends of Zionist expansion. 10. The representative of Jordan has informed the Security Council of the nefarious plans of the Israeli Zionists to extend the boundaries of the city of Jerusalem artificially. He has rightly pointed out that Israel wishes to take over Jerusalem, not on the grounds of any cultural or historical considerations, but mainly for military and strategic considerations and in the interests of the economic exploitation of that city for the sake of enriching Israel’s capitalist monopolies. 11. The Security Council cannot ignore the official data presented by the representative of Jordan which show that the plans for the seizure and Israelization of Arab Jerusalem were formulated and prepared by those in Israel who covet, foreign lands long before Israel began its aggressive war against the Arab States in 1967. This was a kind of Israeli “Barbarossa” plan to seize Jerusalem. The implementation of these plans to recarve and enslave the territory of other countries was, as has now been established by documents, one of the criminal military and political aims of Israel’s aggression in June 1967. 12. The Arab countries and other Asian and African States, as well as a number of international organizations, authorities are systematically destroying and razing to the ground Arab dwellings in the city of Jerusalem. On those deliberately and illegally ravaged lands, they are building housing for their Jewish settlers. In the central part of the city, these vandals of the second half of the twentieth century are outraging the national and religious feelings of the Arabs and their human dignity by barbarously destroy ing and annihilating the most precious and unique monuments of Arab culture. The aim is clear. This is racism, To spit and trample upon the culture of another people, to raze to the ground the most precious monuments of that culture, to impose one’s own way of life on that people by force, these are Hitlerite tactics. These internationally criminal acts by Israel are a gross violation of The Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflictr 13. Another criminal form the arbitrary and illegal measures of the occupiers in Jerusalem take is plunder through the forced alienation and appropriation of the land and property of the Arabs. Despite the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, which have declared all such measures illegal and invalid and which have resolutely called upon Israel to rescind all measures and refrain from any action designed to alter the status of Arab Jerusalem, Israel is stubbornly and on an ever increasing scale continuing forcible seizure and illegal appropriation, in other words its piratical plundering of that Arab city. 14. Matters have reached a stage where the Israeli OCCUpiers have begun to seize even the premises and property of the United Nations in Jerusalem. We all know of the exchange of correspondence between the Secretary-General and the Israeli Government of which an account is given in the reports of the Secretary-General. This documentary evidence shows that the Secretary-General has tried in vain to have the United Nations property in Jerusalem which was seized by the Israeli occupiers returned to the Organization. 15. In order to implement its predatory plans, Israef is systematically carrying out measures designed to alter the ethnic and demographic composition of the occupied part of Jerusalem. By means of intimidation and terror and the forcible immigration and mass deportation of the Arabs, the occupiers are endeavouring to clear space for Jewish settlers in Arab Jerusalem and in other parts of occupied Arab Palestine. Such illegal actions by the occupiers in the territories they have seized are a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Such acts by occupying forces were also strongly and unreservedly condemned in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. The representative of Israel has tried in vain here to represent 1 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 249 (19561, No. 3511. 16. Israel’s annexationist acts are now on such a wide scale that even in the United States press, which is sympathetic to Israel, reports have appeared from time to time unmasking the IsraeIi aggressors. Not long ago, the Washirlgton Post noted that the plans of the Israeli authorities to settle 52,000 Jewish settlers in Arab Jerusalem were illegal under international law. 23. At the same time, Israel is in fact consolidating its position in the occupied Arab lands and the Israeli leaders are openly making statements of an expansionist nature, We have only to read the recent statement by Dayan. 17. United States journalists have also been forced to recognize that the illegal displacement of the population of Arab Jerusalem by Israel is only “the tip of the iceberg” represented by Israel’s far-ranging plans to appropriate foreign lands in the occupied territories of the Arab States. 24. In fact, in Tel Aviv they are seeking not to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, but to consolidate their conquests, counting on the fact that with the passage of time Israel will be able to maintain its hold for a long time over the Arab lands it has seized. 18. The same annexationist policy is being pursued by Israel everywhere in the Arab territories which it occupies. 25. There is no doubt that at the current session the General Assembly will draw the necessary conclusions from this and, following the example of the twenty-fifth session of the Assembly, will make an effective contribution towards restraining the Israeli aggressors and achieving a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. 19. The ultimate aim behind this policy of terror, violence and conquest is to force the Palestinian Arabs to resign themselves to the occupiers, to submit to their domination and to grow accustomed to the idea that Israel holds sway over the Arab lands. 26; In these circumstances, and in conformity with the United Nations Charter, it is the duty of the Security Council to condemn Israel strongly for the annexationist policy it is pursuing in Jerusalem, to call for the immediate cessation of its arbitrary measures and expansionist policy and to compel the ruling circles in Tel Aviv to carry out the resolutions of the Security Council, to withdraw their troops from all the occupied Arab lands including Arab Jerusalem, and to bring about a peaceful political settlement in the Middle East on the basis of Security Council resolution 242 (1967). 20. All these expansionist acts together with Israel’s insolent refusal to withdraw its troops from the occupied Arab territories, to achieve a settlement and to normalize the situation in the Middle East on the basis of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) cannot fail to arouse the most profound indignation and condemnation. This policy of Israel was strongly condemned by the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth anniversary session. Quite recently the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity, in a special resolution on the situation in the Middle East adopted at its eighth session, expressed its serious concern over the continued Israeli occupation of the territories of three Arab States and emphasized the principle, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and reiterated by the Security Council and the General Assembly, that the territory of a State should not be the object of occupation or acquisition by another State as a result of the threat or use of force The resolution adopted by that Assembly contains a firm demand for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all the occupied Arab territories to the lines of 5 June 1967 and for the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967). That is the voice and the demand of the whole of Africa, calling for the withdrawal of the Israeli occupiers from the Arab territories they have seized. 27. As we have been reminded here in the Security Council by the representatives of Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, the Security Council, in its previous resolutions, after having condemned Israel for its attempts to annex Arab Jerusalem, decided that if Israel maintained its negative attitude towards those resolutions, the Council would consider what further measures to adopt to restrain the, aggressor. 28. ‘In view of Israel’s stubborn refusal to submit to the decisions of the United Nations and to respect the principles and purposes of the Charter of this Organization as well as the elementary rules of international law, the Security Council, as the representative of Egypt has rightly pointed out, is faced with the need to consider what further measures it should take. 21. The situation which has been created in Jerusalem as a result of Israel’s aggression and policy of international banditry is aggravating the already serious and dangerous situation in the Middle East. Israel’s actions in Jerusalem are aimed at frustrating the achievement of the political settlement in the Middle East called for by the Security Council in its resolution 242 (1967). 29. The Security Council bears the responsibility for the implementation of the resolutions on Jerusalem which it has adopted. Any new decision which the Council adopts should take into account not only its principal role and 2 See officini Records of the Security Council, Twenty-sixth Year, Supplement for October, November and December 1971, document S/10403, annex I. 22. The conflict in the Middle East is still unsettled and critical. Tension has not abated. Israel is showing no desire 30. In this connexion, we support the request of the Arab countries that a special mission be sent to Jerusalem. This must be a mission of the Security Council. 31. The Soviet delegation considers that the request of the Arab representatives that the Security Council should take measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to eliminate the consequences of Israel’s aggression in the Middle East is fully justified. 32. The Soviet Union, for its part, is ready to participate in the implementation of such measures if a decision to that effect is adopted by the Security Council. 33. It is the duty of the Security Council to compel the presumptuous Israeli aggressors to respect the principles of the United Nations Charter and the decisions of the United Nations aimed at strengthening international security and universal peace,

Once again the Council is seized of the question of Jerusalem. Indeed, on 13 September the Permanent Representative of Jordan asked for the urgent convening of the Security Council [S/10313/ in order “to consider Israel’s illegal measures . . , in defiance of Security Council resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969) and 271 (1969).” 3.5. Answering the appeal which you made, Mr. President, at the beginning of our meetings, my delegation will take care in its statement to deal only with the legal and political aspects and consequences of the implementation of the large new building programme, the measures of expropriation or confiscation and the population transfers effected by the Government of Israel or the municipal authorities of Jerualem. Indeed, my Government shares the view of those who believe that it would be premature at this time in our Council to touch upon the question of the Middle East from the viewpoint of its global settlement as from that of a particular aspect of it. There is no doubt that the major mistake would be to isolate one of the factors of this complex problem and grant it any primacy. 36. Indeed, at a time when, despite often contradictory conceptions of national interests, the chances to reach a negotiated solution-or even a preliminary interim arrangement-remain a reality, thanks not only to the skill and perseverance of wise diplomats and statesmen but also and even first of all to the will for peace affirmed by the enlightened leaders of the countries concerned, political wisdom dictates that we not compromise an already difficult negotiation through debates which are likely to arouse sterile passions. Therefore, the Belgian Government 37. But we cannot remain indifferent to the frustrations and sufferings with which they are confronted. Since June 1967 my Government at every opportunity has expressed its solicitude for the oppressed or harassed civilian populations victims of the war and the occupation. We have also many times expressed our constant concern to see respect for humanitarian conventions, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, which, in section HI, contains an actual code of behaviour for the occupying Power towards persons and properties in the territories which have fallen under its authority. 38. Among the parties to the conflict Israel has been since 1968 the only Power occupying “enemy” territories and is therefore in a position to apply the provisions of that Convention. We cannot but mention our regret to see that, despite the reiterated requests of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to which article 10 grants the right of initiative, Israel persists in refusing to apply integrally this Convention, which it signed and ratified in April 1951. It is true, however, that the Israeli Government allows the International Committee of the Red Cross to continue its humanitarian activities on a pragmatic basis. Further, co-operation between the Israeli authorities and that Committee in the field of the treatment of civilian internees, the regrouping of families, the delivery of food-stuffs and assistance continues in the interest of the persons concerned. 39. However, my Government noted with regret that the same did not apply to articles of the Convention relating to the right of residence and the integrity of civilian properties in occupied territory. The annual or monthly reports of the International Committee of the Red Cross regularly speak of “several destructions of houses and the expulsion of persons, in contravention of the Fourth Convention”. Generally speaking, the Committee, in a most impartial manner, took note of many cases of expropriation in the Arab city of Jerusalem as well as on the outskirts of that city, of various transfers of inhabitants and of the destruction of villages or whole quarters, such as those of Qalquilya and Tulkarem. 40. These violations by the Israeli authorities of articles 33, 49 and 53 of the fourth Geneva Convention have also been recognized by the Security Council in the three resolutions devoted to the problem of Jerusalem. 41. The representative of Israel justified the action of his Government or of the municipal authorities by imperative considerations of security, hygiene, urban migration, or demographic expansion. Further, he spoke of indemnities which allegedly were granted to the former owners in certain cases, 42. No matter what humanitarian or administrative considerations are invoked by Israel to justify its policy, it is none the less true that the measures taken were unilateral measures contrary to the spirit and the letter of interna- 48. We all know how heavy the very name Jerusalem is with his-tory and passions, of attachments and intransigence, all equally legitimate in their very contradictions. We are also aware of the difficulty’ of isolating the specific request of Jordan from the over-all problem of peace in the Middle East. However, we believe that in the present situation, and without pre-judging the general debate which may in due course prove necessary here or elsewhere, it is our duty to comply with your appeal, Mr.President, and limit ourselves solely to examining the complaint before us. Objectively we shall endeavour very briefly to recaI1 the facts and legal regulations which we must respect even more scrupulously. 43. These principles were solemnly reaffirmed a year ago on the occasion of the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of our Organization. In paragraph 5 of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security [General Assembly resolution 2734 (XXV)/ -a document in the drafting of which my delegation took a very active part-the Assembly reaffirmed this obligation among others. In the same text-in paragraph I7-the Assembly: (‘Urges Member States to reaffirm their will to respect fully their obligations under international law in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter . . .“. 49. Following the six-day war, as soon as the Israeliarmy had occupied the Jordanian sector of Jerusalem on 27 June 1967, the Israeli Parliament adopted a law stipulating that the laws, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel wouId apply to every region that would be designated by ordinance. The next day, 28 June, the Government handed down an ordinance according to which the Jordanian sector of the city and the neighbouring areaapproximately IO0 square kilometres-would constitute a region to which Israeli legislation would be applicable. These principles were further expanded in thk Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations [General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), annexJ. It is in the respect for treaties and international agreements that the main basis must be found for the building up of harmonious relations among States. 44. We express the wish that at the end of our work on this subject the Council will succeed unanimously in agreeing on a draft resolution which would invite the Government of Israel to abrogate all legislative and administrative measures and renounce all actions aimed at transforming the status and the character of the city of Jerusalem, and to put an end to the transfers of populations. 50. For his part, the Israeli Minister of the Interior on that same day issued another ordinance which merged the Arab municipality of Jerusalem and the neighbouring territories with the Israeli municipality. 51. The following year, on 14 August 1968, the Knesset adopted a new law on regulations concerning legal and administrative questions, the effects of which on Jerusalem led the Jordanian Government to submit a new complaint to our Council. 45. Finally, we ask the Secretary-General to draft a factual report on the implementation of the subsequent resolutions of the Council containing specific details about the way in which legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel are in violation of previous resolutions of the Security Council and the convention on the law of war. 52. Even before those legislative provisions had been adopted, the Israeli Government, as early as 11 June 1967, had had 13.5 houses demolished and had evicted 660 inhabitants from the Mograbeh Quarter in order to create an open area of access to the Wall of the Temple. 46. My Government has good relations with Israel. It therefore believes that it is its duty to appeal to the Israel authorities to fulfil as rigorously as possible the obligations it freely contracted by adhering to the Charter of the United Nations and by signing the fourth Gefieva Convention. When it becomes more far-sighted with time, history will be grateful to those who, despite all difficulties, will have laid the foundations for a lasting peace. 53. Subsequently, the Israeli Government proceeded with numerous expropriations of land belonging to Arab owners, notably on 30 August 1970, when nearly 1,200 hectares of land were expropriated, according to the Israeli Official Journal, No. 1656, of 30 August 1970. 54. Lastly, and more recently, the Israeli Minister of Housing undertook the accelerated construction around Jerusalem of a ring of apartment houses including 35,000

As has already been stated today, this is not the first time the Security Council has been called upon to 55. Those facts show that the Israeli Government is pursuing a policy designed to integrate the Arab city totally ‘and permanently within an administratively unified Jerusalem. No one can contest the fact that such measures zrzight soon lead to an irreversible situation. 56. Aware of such a danger, the General Assembly, as soon as the June 1967 conflict had ceased, adopted, on 4 July and 14 July 1967, resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V), the first of which called upon Israel: ‘6 . to rescind all measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any action which would alter the status of Jerusalem”. Those resolutions were adopted by a very large majority of the Assembly, without any opposition. 57. In its turn, the Security Council, referring to those two resolutions, adopted on 21 May 1968 resolution 252 (1968) which states that: “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status”. It requested, in addition, that IsraeI rescind all measures already taken and that it “desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”. 58. Subsequently, on 3 July 1969, the Council adopted resolution 267 (1969), which “Cezzsures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, and confirms that those measures “are invalid and cannot change that status”. After having requested it immediately to rescind those measures, the Council requested Israel I’. . . to inform the Security Council without any further delay of its inzentions with regard to the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution”. In case of a negative response, or in the absence of a reply from Israel, our Council was to meet without d.clay to plan whatever other measures might be taken. 59. We are obliged to observe that none of those resolutions, none of those injunctions, has been acted upon. Israel is simply continuing to implement legislative measures, with no regard for the will of the izzternational community. 60. There seems to be no doubt that this policy of annexation is in formal contradiction to United Nations resolutions and constitutes a violation of the rules of 61. Indeed, the Israeli authorities have several times assured us that they would take the necessary measures to protect the Holy Places and ensure free access thereto. That does not, however, justify the integration of a territory occupied by war, or precipitate measures of annexation. What seems serious to us in this policy of faits accomplis is not only that it violates United Nations resolutions as well as izzternational law, but that it increases the resentments of the parties concerned, aggravates the tension in the Middle East, and jeopardizes the chances for a peaceful settlement which, in the interests of Israel as well as of the Arab States, the international community has indefatigably endeavoured to achieve. 62. Jerusalem-Yerushalyim in ancient Hebrew-means, it is said, “City of peace”. It is also the city of prayer, the city of threefold prayer: the city of the Holy Sepulchre, of Zoubbet el Sakra, of the Wailing Wall. 63. This unique character, this universal character, must be preserved. No unilateral action can or should alter it. Surely Israel, better than anyone else, should understand this Moslem, Christian and Judaic vocation of the city, Then this holy city, which has lived through so many ruins and upheavals and for which for centuries so much blood has been shed, will fulfil its destiny of spiritual work by sealing the reconciliation of divided human brothers, 64. The draft resolution, carefully drafted in moderate terms, which, despite its flaws, we shall support, is primarily an appeal. We trust that it will not fall on deaf ears.

A few days ago, in a memorable statement which will doubtless figure in the annals of the United Nations among those statements of our Secretary-General, U Thant, that are most important and informative, he said: “the United Nations will not become the effective instrument its founders intended it to be until its Members abide by its rules and give real attention to its decisions and resolutions. This is especially true in the most complex and difficult situations, such as the Middle East problem, where the failure to reach a solution is not so much the failure of the United Nations to take decisions as the failure of its Members to abide by those decisions.” 66. Those prophetic words reflect exactly the reality of the situation and have the additional value that they warn us very seriously regarding the future. 67. It is true: the history of the United Nations on the question of Jerusalem is the history of a long series of resolutions that have not been complied with, beginning with that one which set forth the partitioning of Palestine 68. From the outbreak of hostilities in 1948, which led to the occupation by Jordan of the major portion of the Old City and of the new city by Israel, to the events that gave rise to the present meeting, the majority of the resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council have not been complied with. 74. There can be no doubt whatsoever that at least to the same extent that same value and interest are the heritage of Christians and Moslems. For this reason we are convinced that sooner or later, clearly and internationally, the status of Jerusalem will have to be defined, taking into account adequately and integrally that convergence of historic and religious interests and rights to which the Pope referred. 69. I do not beheve it is necessary here to list the ample background that has been accumulated in the course of years and which is far too well known to all. However, I will point out that in all cases there has been a constant characteristic, namely that the specific, if not unique, situation of Jerusalem has always been recognized as well as the need to preserve it from any effort to undermine or change it. 75. Until that takes place we must not innovate in Jerusalem. And this not only to preserve the status and the character of the City, but, what is even more important perhaps, in order that political and religious passions shall not continue to be exacerbated and make even more difficult the achievement of a negotiated solution. 70. There can also be no doubt that today there is a perfectly justified concern in vast areas of the world over what is taking place in Jerusalem. No one can argue, objectively, that that concern is always due to antagonism towards Israel or a predisposition against the State of Israel. Jerusalem has as much importance for Christians, Moslems and Jews as to justify fully the attention of the United Nations and of the highest authorities of those beliefs with regard to what might take place there in the present and in the future. It cannot validly be contended that interest in this problem is exclusively the monopoly of the countries neighbouring the region or that preservation of its status is the responsibility of only its present occupier, 76. It was with that end in view that resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) were adopted by the General Assembly at its fifth emergency special session and that resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969) and 271 (1969) were adopted by the Security Council. Pursuant to all these, he who is at present in de facto possession of Jerusalem by military occupation is under the imperative obligation not to transform nor change the City in such a way as to alter that status and confront the United Nations with faits accomplis. 77. In the case of the grievous question of the Middle East, the position of the Argentine Republic has been and continues to be impartial and constructive. My country enjoys friendly relations with all the countries that are parties to the present conflict, We are therefore guided by only one objective: to contribute by our unstinted efforts to the establishment of just and lasting peace in the region, based on the law, on the purposes and principles of the Charter and on the acceptance and mutual fulfilment of the obligations incumbent upon the parties pursuant to resolution 242 (1967) of the Security Council. We trust that this way of approaching this question will not be termed a lack of equity on our part. 71. On 14 March 1971 His Holiness Pope Paul VI stated: “Speaking specifically of the situation in the Middle East, which might require much greater elaboration, we feel that we must protect a very serious duty and right, not merely on our own behalf but on behalf of all Christianity. We refer to the recognition of the specific requirements of the Holy Places in Palestine, of the continued residence of Christians in that unhappy land and of the status of Jerusalem, where none can deny the special convergence of a multitude of historic and religious rites.” A short time later, on 24 June this year, the Holy Father stated : 78. With the authority that this position gives us, having shown it constantly and invariably in all the debates that have taken place on the Middle East, we repeat our conviction that Israel, without hesitation, must adjust its conduct to the requirements of the aforementioned resolutions and that the Security Council should once again and with full clarity reaffirm its previous statements regarding Jerusalem. “Then there is the question of Jerusalem. We believe, I repeat, that it is in the interest of all and therefore is a duty that that city, enjoying as it does a unique and mystic destiny, be protected by a special statute, guaranteed by a legal international instrument, so that in this way it can become, instead of an object of implacable controversies and endless disputes, a place of concord, peace and faith. With this end in view and in a spirit of respect and friendship, we are carrying out a task of persuasion,” 79. Mr. KIJ$AGA (Poland): The Polish delegation has studied attentively the documents submitted to the Council on the subject now under consideration, that is, the question of the illegal measures carried out by Israel in Jerusalem. My delegation has also studied the statements made in the Council in the debate up to now, in particular, the statements of delegations of friendly Arab States 72. The statements I have just quoted, which I presume no one will imply are born of political designs, express a concern that many of us share. 81. I agree with many of my colleagues that our debate on this problem must be put in its proper context, its proper juridical and political framework. Basic to it is and must be the concept of the non-admissibility of acquisition of territory by military conquest, by use of force in contravention of .the Charter of the United Nations. This is a fundamental concept of international law enshrined in the Charter. Its validity in the present circumstances has been strongly reaffirmed in one of the main documents adopted by the commemorative session of the General Assembly last year: the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security [resdution 2734 (XXV)]. That it is of immediate relevance to the case of the Middle East is self-evident. Hence the first premise in our approach to the problem under discussion. 82. A second consideration in our viewing of the problem stems from the numerous resolutions of .the Security Council as well as of the General Assembly concerning Jerusalem-resolutions, which, in our opinion, are only a logical application of the principle of non-admissibility of military conquest of foreign territory to the case in point. Hence the condemnation of all measures taken by Israel with a view to imposing its sovereignty in occupied Jerusalem, to changing the status of the city of Jerusalem. Hence the categorical statement that all legislative and administrative measures and actions by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status, and the equally categorical demand that they be rescinded forthwith. Hence the decision to keep the situation under a review and not to allow any further steps to be taken by Israel in pursuance of its expansionist goals. 83. In any consideration of the problem of Jerusalem the spiritual aspect inherent in that situation cannot be overlooked. For Jerusalem is of special significance to the religious communities of the world. It has a particular position as a historic centre of cultural and spiritual values. The strength of the feelings expressed in the debate to date is a testimony to this. So is the deep concern manifested by the international community, by the highest representatives of religious circles as well as by cultural organizations, UNESCO being in the for&front. 84. Neither can we overlook the fact, so forcefully exposed in our debate already, of the illegal acts by Israeli authorities against the premises of the United Nations in Jerusalem. These extreme acts, as was recalled by Ambassa- 85. It can therefore be said that in the chain of aggressive acts committed by Israel against Arab countries, the attempts at formally annexing Jerusalem, at-as it was pointed out in the debate-Israelizing the city, create a particularly sensitive situation. 86. This being the framework and the political and legal stand of the United Nations and of the world community our duty today is to assess the acts of Israel against this background and to adopt the measures necessary to redress the situation obtaining in Jerusalem, as a minimum im* mediate step in the context of a general solution of the situation in the Middle East based on resolution 242 (1967) of the Security Council. 87. The facts of the situation in Jerusalem are well known, They have been presented once again in the lucid statements of Arab delegations in our Council. They are the subject of numerous reports of organs of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies. Repeating them would not add anything to the debate. One camlot, however, fail to see the consistency in the illegality of Israeli acts in Jerusalem, as well as in other occupied Arab territories. 88. From the outset the Israeli authorities made it clear that the process of annexation of Jerusalem was to be irrevocable and not negotiable. The statement of policy has been consistently applied in practice in two directions: first, through the creation of faits accomplis in the City of Jerusalem; and second, through the simultaneous rejection and ignoring of all United Nations decisions and protests by international opinion. 89. The Israeli actions in Jerusalem, as shown in the documents before the Council, reveal a persistence and a thoroughness in the implementation of that statement of policy from a position of force, from a position of military occupation. The main line of that policy is directed at a radical change of the structure of the population of Jerusalem by means of expulsion of the Arab population, destruction of Arab houses and property and confiscation of land. That is, of course, the concept of the use of force in its purest form, 90. A second line consists of intimidation of the Arab population based on economic pressure as a means to obtain the same objective. 91. The third line of Israeli action seems to consist in measures aimed at the eventual eradication of all forms of Arab cultural and religious presence. In this Israeli IebeilP ram practice there would be room for new J&h immigrants and for master plans of development of quarters for a constant stream of Jewish newcomers. 92. Those and many other measures of the Israeli authori. ties find their ultimate expression in juridical and admin. istrative acts and regulations whose sum total amounts to nothing else than a policy of practical annexation of Jerusalem. At that time Italy supported fully-and continues to support-General Assembly resolution 2254 (ES-V). That position has ever since been consistently maintained by Italy and reflects also the traditional attachment of the Italian people to the Holy City. 98. In the past the United Nations has adopted resolutions which provide principles and guidelines for the protection of the international interests that surround Jerusalem. This Council, in particular, has adopted various decisions to this effect and, furthermore, has laid down in one of its resolutions the principles in accordance with which a general settlement has to be attained to bring lasting peace to the Middle East. 94. In studying this fundamental problem I have been impressed by the elaboration made by Ambassador El- Zayyat of the “further actions” which the Security Council must take in the face of Israel’s avowed contempt for and utter disregard of its resolution. The Polish delegation, too, declares itself in favour not only of a reaffirmation of the decisions contained in Security Council resolutions 252 (1968) and 267 (1969), but also of the adoption of all measures necessary to ensure the implementation of those resolutions and of the principles which, at the beginning of my intervention, I called the political and juridical framework of the problem now under consideration. 99. The Italian Government is firmly convinced that such a resolution is constructive and well balanced and contains all the essential elements for a just and lasting peace. In fact, having emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, it affirms the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. ItaIy is more than ever convinced that all efforts should be directed towards the full implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through the instrumentalities provided by it.

The complaint brought before the Security Council by the Jordanian Government is on a subject which, for well-known historical reasons and because of more recent events, gives rise to strong emotions much beyond its geographical area every time it is taken up. The debate which has taken place in the course of three meetings in this chamber and has resounded loudly outside testifies to this simple truth. 100. Accordingly, we think that the future of Jerusalem should be determined, in accordance with the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations, through the special machinery provided for by the Security Council, and it should. not, therefore, be predetermined through unilateral acts such as those which have been voiced in this chamber and cited with so many details that it would be redundant for me to go over them. 96. That is why I do not think my delegation could add anything to the knowledge of the Council by dwelling on the historical background and a number of measures carried out in the occupied section of Jerusalem which can have some bearing on the future status of the City. Everything that could be said has been said in those meetings and repeated today. I would rather turn to what can be done by the Council at this stage. For our part, we are confident that once again the Security Council will reaffirm, in clear terms and by unanimous vote, that the status of Jerusalem should be preserved. This will show, above all, how wide and deep is the international concern for any action taken in Jerusalem without regard to the special position which the City enjoys in the world community. 101, In order to spare the time of the Council I shall confine myself to noting, as all previous speakers have done, and as undoubtedly those who follow will do, that these actions and measures, carried out in the section of Jerusalem occupied by Israel in the course of the June war, are inconsistent with the provisions of international law governing rights and obligations of an occupying Power, In particular, in our opinion, the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is fully applicable to the occupied sections of the city of Jerusalem. 97. On several occasions in this Organization Italy has stressed the unique international standing of a City sacred to three of the world’s largest and oldest religions. In the aftermath of the June war, Mr. Moro, the then Prime Minister of Italy, speaking on the Middle East from the rostrum of the General Assembly, on 21 June 1967, said: 102. The Italian Government considers that these actions and measures are not only contrary to international law, but also politically harmful. My Government has on several occasions expressed its concern in this respect to the Government of Israel since they create new causes of “There are, moreover, questions which affect the more general interests of the international community. . . . A similar problem exists with regard to the Holy Places, 1’ 103. Mr, FARAH (Somalia): My delegation has listened with great attention to the debate that has taken place SO far on the question of Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, and on the developments that have followed that illegal act. The point that has emerged clearly is that Israel has not yet answered the charges that have been brought against it. In considering matters such as Jordan’s submission on the question of Israel’s illegal occupation of East Jerusalem, the Security Council, of necessity, takes on some of the characteristics of a court of law. It has to consider the charges that have been made and the evidence to support those charges, and if the Council is to carry out its proper function and not abrogate its authority, it must take whatever action is necessary to preserve international law and international order. 104. The Council has a firm basis for its proceedings and judgements. This basis is applied by the principles of international law, implicit and explicit in the Charter, by the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, which uphold the principles of the Charter, and it is also supplied by the statutes and precedents that arise from those covenants on the conduct of international affairs to which the majority of the world community subscribes. 10.5. The Council has heard irrefutable evidence to support the charge that Israel has carried out actions which defy the principles of the Charter, defy the General Assembly and the Security Council, and contravene some of the major covenants on the conduct of international affairs. These charges are not new. They began to be made in 1967 and have continued ever since and they are supported by a body of evidence that has steadily increased since that time. All of the charges that can be made against Israel on the question of the status of Jerusalem stem from that country’s denial of a principle of international law reaffirmed by the Charter, the principle which states the inadmissibility of the aquisition of territory by conquest, Israel’s denial of that principle is clearly illustrated by its purported annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and by its extension of the purported annexation to areas beyond the City. 106. These annexations are also contraventions of The Hague regulations which limit the rights of an occupying Power to that of administration alone. Another of The Hague regulations states that the administration of the occupying Power should follow as closely as possible that which existed before the occupation of the territory. The repeal of a great many of the laws in force in East Jerusalem when it was under Jordanian rule, and the replacement by Israeli laws and measures was therefore another violation of this international covenant. Changes in the currency of the territory, in taxation, in the conduct of education, and in the laws governing the disposal of property, were some of the obvious illegalities carried out by Israel as an occupying Power. 108. Israel’s transgressions against the Geneva Convention of 1949 are particularly ironic since the provisions of that Convention were adopted in large part as a result of the treatment of Jews under the Nazi regime immediately before and during World War II. The conditions of Israel’s occupation of Arab lands in general, and of Jerusalem in particular, provide the first opportunity for measuring the performance of an occupying Power against the standards set by that Convention. Obviously, Israel’s performance is one that is completely unacceptable to the world community. 109. Much of the evidence of the truth of these charges lies in officially announced policies and promulgations of the Israeli Government. The annexation of the old city is no secret. It was approved by the Knesset , There have been frequent pronouncements by Israeli leaders that the unification of Jerusalem is irrevocable and that as far as they are concerned, the question of a return to the stahrs quo aflde is non-negotiable. In fact, this was the tenor of the official Israeli response to the Secretary-General’s request that Israel comply with the Security Council resolution of 1968 [2S2 (196811. 110. The numerous violations of the normal provisions of occupation have been carried out through laws and proclamations whose existence can be easily verified and whose results have been widely reported in the international press. In response to Israel’s illegal actions in Jerusalem, the General Assembly and the Security Council have adopted a series of resolutions, the first being General Assembly resolution 2253 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967, and the last Security Council resolution being resolution 267 (1969), These resolutions were all adopted by overwhelming majorities. They have often been quoted and I do not need to describe them all here. The consensus of international opinion on the status (of Jerusalem is best summed up by the last-mentioned resolution, resolution 267 (1969), which, among other things, reaffirmed that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible; it deplored the failure of Israel to show any regard for past resolutions on the subject of Jerusalem, confirmed that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, which purporting to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status; and urgently called on Israel to rescind forthwith all measures taken by it which may tend to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, and in future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect. 118. If any further evidence were needed to illustrate Israel’s intransigence on the question of Jerusalem and its defiance of the United Nations it would be its cavalier treatment of the Secretary-General when he requested information on the housing plan for Jerusalem in general and on the bulldozing operations within the grounds of the headquarters of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. The Secretary-General’s requests for information either have been ignored or have received unsatisfae tory replies that skirted the central issue. 112. Now, while it would be unfortunate if such claims were to have no sway in international affairs they certainly cannot be the sole basis for international arrangements. The claims of religion and sentiment must operate within the framework of the legal and political rigbts’of peoples and States-in other words, within the framework of the system of international law which the United Nations upholds. 113. Israel’s refusal to operate within that framework and its disregard of United Nations resolutions have grown increasingly arrogant since 1967. While the Israelis claim they have accepted the principles of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and agreed-initially, at any rate-to co-operate with the Jarring Mission established under the terms of that resolution, they were at the same time undermining the possibility of a peaceful settlement by their actions in Jerusalem. 119. Differing versions have appeared in the international press of the provisions and revised provisions of the master plan of the Israeli Ministry of Housing for the construction of new housing for Israelis on confiscated Arab land in East Jerusalem. The Israeli representative claims that no such plan exists. Will he also deny that between 20,000 and 35,000 units are planned for the three areas of Nebi Samwil, Government House and’ Sharaf, capable of housing well over 100,000 new settlers? 114. It will be recalled that in document S/10070 of 4 January 1971 the representatives of Egypt and Jordan gave the Secretary-General examples of Israel’s policy of absorbing Arab territory in violation of United Nations resolutions and appealed to the international community to take steps to put an end to the violations. 120. In February 197 1 the Manchester Guardian reported that bulldozing was in progress at the Government House site, and on 1 April The New York Times reported the eviction of Arab families and the demolition of houses in the Arab village of Nebi Samwil so that construction could be started. Are those reports complete fabrications on the part of newspapers with an international reputation? The fact that this expropriation of land and this planning and execution of building projects is being carried out unilaterally and without consultation with or support from the Arab community has been noted not only by the international press but also by the Supreme Moslem Council of Jerusalem, the panel of international architects convened by the Jerusalem City Council, foreign observers and church groups in Jerusalem. 115. On 23 February 1971 they again protested Israel’s building plans for areas around Jerusalem seized from Jordan in 1967, pointing out that the projects could serve military purposes and perpetuate the Israeli occupation. 116. The facts of Israeli illegal actions in East Jerusalem are not open to question. They have been widely reported by the international press and proudly admitted by the Israeli authorities themselves. Reporting on this question on 12 January 1971, The New York Times, which can hardly be described as a pro-Arab source, referred to a controversy within Israel itself over the attempt “to put a purely Israeli stamp on a region that has long been claimed by Jews, Arabs and Christians”. ne New York Times went on to say that the critical judgement in Israel had been that the Government was aiming to make the Israeli presence so 121. The political and legal issues in all this are clear. In occupied Jerusalem, as in Hebron, the Golan Heights, Sinai and other areas of occupied Arab territory the Israelis are following their classic policy of expropriation followed by colonization, of “creating facts” in complete disregard of humanitarian principles or principles of international law. 123. Speaking for himself and for the Government, the Israeli Minister of Housing also said, in the context of criticism of the plans for housing Jerusalem immigrants, ‘“I can see no reason why Jerusalem must claim preferential status”. It is a chilling thought that the preservation of the unique character of that sacred city should continue to be at the mercy of those who cannot see why J&Salem, more than any other area, must not become a tasteless, overcrowded, urban monstrosity. 124. Various points of view have been expressed over the years about the eventual status of Jerusalem. There is support, particularly from some religious denominations, for the proposal that Jerusalem should have a special international status, a view that has been debated in the United Nations from time to time since 1949. The legal position now, however, is that there must be a return to the status quo before the war of 1967 so that the final disposition of the question of Jerusalem can be arrived at within the context of an over-all Middle East settlement. That disposition certainly cannot be made unilaterally. In attempting to enforce a unilateral settlement on the question of Jerusalem the Israeli Government has openly and deliberately embarked upon a policy which closes the door to peace in the Middle East. It contravenes international, law, frustrates a unanimous resolution of the Security Council and frustrates the clearly expressed will of the international community. 125: Israel’s policy towards Jerusalem is also a betrayal of an historic trust. In these circumstances it seems to my delegation that the Security Council must not only call on Israel to comply with its resolutions on Jerusalem, but it must also indicate in no uncertain terms the steps it will take to enforce its authority should Israel once more reject the rule of law and turn its back on peace in the Middle East. Calling on Israel to comply with United Nations resolutions is a necessary formality, but a formality none the less. It has been done many times before with no success and we have had clear notice from the statements of the representative of Israel that his Government intends to continue on its defiant course. The question whether Israel is to be allowed to continue to flout.the authority of the Security Council with impunity is one that can no longer be ignored. 127. The preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution are factual. They recall the various resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council which relate to the question and which express not only the universal concern of the international community on Israeli measures for changing the status of the Israeli-occupied section of Jerusalem, but also the demand to Israel to rescind the measures it has taken to give expression to its illegal actions. The predmbular paragraphs reaffirm a cardinal principle of this Organization, that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible. Not only is it proper that the Security Council should reaffirm such an important principle, but it should also urgently consider steps that should be taken to obtain respect for that principle if international anarchy is not to be encouraged. 128. ?he operative paragraphs are self-explanatory. Paragraph 1 reaffirms Security Council resolutions 252 (1968) and 267 (1969). Significantly, the latter resolution, which went further than any of the other resolutions on this question in expressing the consensus of international opinion on the illegality of Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and of its policy towards East Jerusalem was adopted unanimously. 129. Paragraph 2 deplores the failure of Israel to respect the resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council concerning Israeli measures and actions purporting to affect the status of the City of Jerusalem. 130. Since it is important to impress upon Israel the illegality of ,its actions, paragraph 3 has been inserted to make clear to all that the Security Council confirms that ali legislative and administrative actions taken by Israei to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status. From the evidence that has been accumulated since the adoption of the last Security Council resolution on this matter, it is an incontrovertible fact that Israel has not complied with any of the calls made upon it to desist from measures designed to change the status and character of East Jerusalem. Acknowledging this regrettable fact, opentive paragraph 4 of the draft resolution will call once again on Israel to take no-and I repeat “no’‘-further steps which may purport to change the status of the City. 13 1. Finally, paragraph 5 : ‘Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the President of the Security Council and using SUCK instrumentalities as he may choose, including a representative or a mission, to report to the Security Council as appropriate and in any event within sixty days on the implementation of this resolution”. 132. In another situation involving the illegal occupation of a territory by a Member State, namely, South Africa, the International Court of Justice, in a striking majority opinion, has stated, that Member States of this Organization are under the obligation to refrain from lending any support or any form of assistance to that country while it continues in illegal occupation of Namibia. Since there are 138. We may find, as we should, that the newer Israeli- Zionist aggressions deserve still another rebuke, another rebuke against the aggressor and the exploiter. But history eloquently testifies that a rebuke, like past rebukes, will not save the city, because little of the spirit which makes the city holy will transcend the quibbles over language designed to narrow the interpretation of the letter of the law, unfortunately leaving loop-holes to the advantage of the aggressor. no differences within this Council on the illegality of Israel’s presence in East Jerusalem and the measures it has taken to change the status and character of that city, there would be justification to apply similar sanctions against Israel if it refuses to conduct itself on the Jerusalem question in accordance with its obligations under the Charter, the norms established by international law and the decisions of this Council, 139. We know, I think, where to turn for a formula for the salvation of this unique city. Perhaps to the Old Testament, to th.e New Testament, to the Holy Koran-to the sacraments of our common spiritual heritage, all of which are so inextricably linked. to Jerusalem. 133. The draft resolution which my delegation has submitted has been drawn up after careful consultation with some delegations. Some delegations may consider that it does not go far enough. But acknowledging the varying extent to which each delegation is prepared to go at this stage, the draft provisions represent the maximum which my delegation believes can be achieved in order for the Council to maintain unanimity of action and unanimity of purpose on this very important and delicate question. 140. It takes no theologian to know what a Jeremiah, a Jesus, a Mohammed would say if any one of them-or all three of them-were a member of this deliberative body. They wouId thunder in oral indignation to find the money &angers in the temple of Jerusalem. Their voices are voices along with those of other great lawmakers of mankind to which this man-made instrument struggling for peace should listen. For it is their voices echoing down the ages in the hearts of hundreds of millions of the peoples of the world which give Jerusalem its sanctity. And I remind my colleagues that the United Nations is chartered to serve “the peoples” of the world.

The world watches as Jerusalem is raped. Zionist plans to establish an Israeli fait accompli in the Holy City are looked on with horror by Moslem, Christian and Jew-indeed, by all honest and law-abiding citizens of the world regardless of their religion. 135. But it seems that very little can be done to stop Israel turning Jerusalem into a Zionist showpiece and carnival. As we deliberate here today, Israel, in utter disregard of law, is carrying on its work in the Holy City of Jerusalem. Yet, of all cities of the world, Jerusalem has a special meaning and should be approached in a special way. 141. I am as prepared as anyone to engage in the inevitable polemics, the semantics and the legal hairsplitting, However, what I am saying is that a tortured, bewildered and war-weary world expects better of us in all things and feels, instinctively at least, if not justifiably consciously, that when we confront the problem of Jerusalem we must do better, They expect us to drive the money changers from the temple. But we cannot do this until we first drive the pettiness, the hypocrisy alld the worship of power from those who are power hungry. We can emancipate Jerusalem if we will it, and make it what the dreams and the aspirations of “the peoples” wish it to be. We can do this by listening to the spiritual giants and law-makers of the world who gave character to our separate ideologies and who, in doing so, gave Jerusalem a special meaning to the entire world, We can redeem Jerusalem through justice and righteousness, by rendering to God that which belongs to God and by staying the hands of the conquerors, the Caesars, whoever they are. That is what our Charter requires US to do and there is no place more fitting 136. All the speakers who have preceded me have described what Israel is doing in contravention of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and of internatiOna law. But despite the usual orchestration of Israeli Zionist propaganda the Holy City is ‘sullen and indeed sad, very sad, as on the day of the crucifixion. There is more than a little evidence that its Arab Christian population, because of subtle pressures, is diminishing, and that its Arab Moslem population trembles, knowing that it cannot ever be first-class citizens as aggression is consolidated by a State in which the criteria for full nationality are based upon another religious identification. It is small wonder, therefore, that the item of Jerusalem is again inscribed on our agenda. 143. Only a few days ago, on 23 September, the Jewish Telegraplzic Agency reported that Israel’s population had topped 3 million. It stated the following: “The Central Bureau of Statistics announced yesterday that Israel’s population now stands at 3,062,000, of which 2,610,OOO are listed as Jews and 452,000 as non-Jews. The latest figure represents a population increase of 67,000 Jews and 17,000 non-Jews since last year. According to the Bureau, 60 per cent of the Jewish population growth represented natural increase and 40 per cent immigration. The growth of the non-Jewish population was almost entirely by natural increase.” 144. What about the city of Jerusalem? We listened during the debate at the last meeting to the figures given by the Israeli representative about the number of Jews, Arabs, Christians and Moslems in the Holy City. I have here the statistics from the survey of Palestine prepared by the Secretary of Information for Palestine of the Anglo- American Committee of Inquiry-a British-American body. They speak about the census of 1922 and 193 1, when there were 56,346 Arabs and 34,43 1 Jews. At the same time they give the figures for the total settled population in Jerusalem for the end of 1944. when there were 140,532 Arabs and 100,200 Jews. Those are the figures of the Palestine Anglo-American Committee, and they are embodied in the Palestine Yearbook for 1947-1948. 145. According to the statistics given by Mr. Tekoah the number of Jews in 1970 was 215,000 while that of the Arabs, Christians and Moslems was 70,000. That shows the dimensions of the conquest to which we are witness and of which the Arabs alone are the victims. 146. We have listened to the representative of Somalia submitting a draft resolution. But my deiegation believes that the Security Council should have started at the place where the issue was left after the adoption of resolution 267 (1969) on 3 July 1969. Members who have already addressed the Council have quoted paragraphs 6 and 7 of that resolution. 147. They read as follows: “Requests Israel to inform the Security Council without any further delay of its intentions with regard to the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution; “‘Determines that, in the event of a negative response or no response from Israel, the Security Council shall reconvene without delay to consider what further action should be taken in this matter.” 149. In my last statement to the Council [1581st meeringl I quoted from the Advisory Opinion of the Interna. tional Court of Justice on Namibia,4 to which the representative of Somalia has already alluded. I dealt with the consequences of,illegality. But there is a further step in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, which, I believe, in its entirety constitutes a landmark not only in the troubled history of the former Mandated Territory of South West Africa but also in the evolution of international law, and more specifically in the subject of Jerusalem we are discussing. 1.50. The Security Council has so far adopted three resolutions; they are in addition to the two resolutions of the General Assembly. The Advisory Opinion, after having elaborated on the consequences of illegality, stated the following with regard to the duty to enforce Security Council resolutions. Paragraph 113 of the Advisory Opinion states: “It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to ‘the decisions of the Security Council’ adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. ‘If Article 25 had refereace solely to decisions of the SecuriQ Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter.” 1.5 I. The speakers who have preceded me in this meeting have all expressed their opposition to Israel’s violations of international law and to its utter disregard for the stipulations and provisions of the three Security Council resolu. tions. But how is that opposition to be translated into actuality? How are we to enforce upon Israel that opposition which we have been hearing in the Council here? 152. Although the United States has not participated in this debate, I should like to quote from the deliberations that took place in the Council on 1 July 1969, at the 1483rd meeting. The then Permanent Representative of the 4 Legal Consequences for States of the Contiilued I-resence d South Africa in Namibia (South West Afn’ca) notwithstarlding Security Council resolution 2 76 (197Oj, Advisory Opinion, KJ. Reports 1971, p. 16. The word “he”’ should be “they”, because the Security Council is making the request of both the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council. Therefore, the logical thing would be to consider them together, and say “as they may choose,” and so on. 160. My third amendment is to add an operative paragraph 6, which would read as follows : “Decides that the Security Council shall reconvene without delay to consider the report referred to in operative paragraph 5 and what further action should be taken under the Charter.” 153. In the light of all this, any new draft resolution should have embodied what has already been established in international law as the measures to be applied against Israel. In that connexion one should bear in mind Israel’s obligation under the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law to put an end to its illegal administration in Jerusalem and to all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by it in contravention of the aforementioned principles and resolutions. It should also be determined that Israel’s unilateral annexation of Jerusalem brings international responsibility arising from the continuing violation of an international obligation. 161. The rationale behind those amendments is the following. With regard to the first amendment-namely, to add the words “to rescind all previous measures and actions and”-those words are to be found not only in Security Council resolution 267 (1969) but actually in all resolutions on Jerusalem adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly. With regard to the replacement, in operative paragraph 5, of the word “sixty” by “thirty”, the General Assembly should be made aware of what the consequences of the requested mission and its report should be. The reason for the addition of operative paragraph 6 is that, in view of past experience, especially that to which I referred in connexion with resolution 267 (1969), it has become obligatory for the Council to meet after a report has been submitted to it. 154. Condemnation of the acts of Israel is a matter of fact, but there are too the duties of the members of the Security Council, Members of the United Nations. The Security Council should therefore call upon all Member States of the United Nations, in accordance with the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, to recognize the illegality and invalidity of Israel’s actions in Jerusalem, and to refrain from giving any support or any form of assistance to Israel because of its illegal annexation and the other measures it has taken in Jerusalem.

I call on the representative of the United States on a point of order.

I am not clear what the representative of Syria was proposing. Was he indeed proposing another amendment, which would simply change the word “he” to “they”? It is in good English as it is written, and its meaning is very clear. I raised a point of order because I was not clear about his proposal. Was he proposing an additional amendment to those in the document that we have been handed? As I say, the text ’ certainly makes good sense as it is. I think the sponsor was well aware of the text being submitted in this form, and it is good English as written. It is not a grammatical error. I simply ask you, Mr.President, whether it is your understanding that we should add to this list what has been submitted to us as a fourth amendment. 155. The second consequence of that would be the application 0% sanctions; but, unfortunately, in spite of the pious statements of some Member States, and even of the Security Council, help is still being tendered to Israel, encouraging it in its annexationist and expansionist measures-and first and foremost by the Government of the United States of America. 156. My delegation would like to submit the following amendments to draft resolution S/10337 presented by the representative of Somalia. These amendments have already appeared; they will be distributed to members in document S/10338.

I was going to ask the same question of the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic: whether he is proposing a formal amendment-a fourth amendment. 157. First, in the first. line of paragraph 4, after the word “Israel”, the following would be added: “to rescind all Previous measures and actions and”. The paragraph would then resume with the words “to take no further steps”, and so on.

I suggested that “he” be replaced by “they” on the basis of its being a grammatical equivocation, because one could understand it either way. Therefore I propose it as an amendment. 158. Second, in paragraph 5, “sixty” would be replaced by “thirty”. 168. It may be recalled that in my last statement[1581st meeting] I told the Council that I would dwell at some length on why Israel has chosen to make old Jerusalem the capital of world Jewry. Time and again I mentioned that from the very beginning political Zionists had used Judaism as a motivation for political and economic ends. We all owe a great deal, especially those adherents of monotheistic religions, to Judaism, to the prophets, who lived and thrived in our midst-but not in the Balkans. Those prophets were not descended, either by blood or by culture, from the Khazars, who really introduced this movement into the world in 1896, when Theodore Herzl published what I would call the rules and regulations-or call it the manifesto-of political Zionism. 169. After the occupation of the old pati of that city, the Zionists tried to consolidate it with the part they had occupied after the creation of Israel by usurping Palestine. Jerusalem, they tell us, is indivisible and inviolable. That is a big claim. But who is violating the decisions of the Security Council and the many resolutions that have been adopted by the General Assembly? If indeed old Jerusalem was so holy to the Zionists they would not change its character. Only the other day Mr. Tekoah told us what the Zionists were doing in Jerusalem. They want to make it the 171. Something very serious happened. Where is U Thant? I do not see him sitting in his seat. I wish he were here because this has a direct bearing on something that U Thant said yesterday during a very sumptuous banquet that was given at the Waldorf Astoria by an organization known as “In the U.N. we believe”. I happened to be present. U Thant is an honourable man, but he must have been exasperated by the pressures that were brought to bear on him by the Zionists. Some of you may have heard what he said. Others, I am sure, did not take into account what he said. So why try to paraphrase what our illustrious Secretary-General said. Why not read excerpts from his speech that relate to this very question, Here it is. I got it this morning. I do not have to paraphrase any thing. He said : “In many ways the Secretary-General’s activities in the sphere of good offices may be compared to an iceberg, only a small portion is actually visible and a very substantial part remains submerged. Tonight I am illustrating this point with a purpose.” Our beloved Secretary-General continues: “In the course of the last two years many requests and appeals from Soviet citizens of the Jewish faith wishing to leave the Soviet Union for Israel have been officially brought to my attention. I have received such appeals, individually or collectively, from some 800 persons, and have in all cases undertaken to do all within my power to help, while at the same time pointing out that in such matters the greatest discretion and lack of publicity are essential. “Last month I was gratified to be informed officially that more than 400 out of 800 appellants on my list were now in Israel. At the same time appreciation was expressed for my efforts in this delicate matter. I very much hope that this favourable trend will continue.” 172. I am not going to read selectively all that the Secretary-General said, but I have to quote another few lines from his speech to show you to what lengths political Zionism goes to attain its ends. And in retrospect I will read a Few passages for the record about what they have done to “In fact, my office has been receiving”-and mark those words, please-“a continuous flow of criticism and complaints, some of them violent to the point of irrationality, on this matter.” I do not know but that they may have threatened to kill the Secretary-General. How do we know? “This tide of uninformed abuse comes from both individuals and organizations which accuse the United Nations”-meaning him, too,-“of indifference, apathy, impotence and worse. In all fairness to the United Nations, and indeed to all those with whom I have dealt on this question, which is a difficult one for all concerned, it therefore seemed to me necessary now to make a brief statement of the facts of the matter.” Israel was therefore created to further the chances of a President for re-election. 177. But why quote only CoIonel Eddy, whom I happened to know personally, a very honourable man who was there and heard what the President said? Why not quote Mr, David Horowitz? Who is Mr. David Horowitz? He was a member of the Jewish Agency Executive. He has said what was resorted to so as to create the State of Israel, or at least to lay the ground for the creation of the State of Israel by the partition of Palestine. I shall now quote Mr. Horowitz: 173. What assurance do the Moslems of the world and the Arabs in particular have that those political Zionists will not continue their pressures, their arm-twisting, sometimes their blackmail, to attain their purpose? The Soviet Union has 3 million Soviet Jews. I doubt that they are disloyal to the Soviet Union. There are many distinguished Jews in the Soviet Union. But the Soviet Jews are human; they can be brainwashed by incessant propaganda. There are many loyal American Jews in the United States, but we have seen how, within 20 years, they roused them into a frenzy on behalf of Israel. What assurance do WC have that this Jerusalem is not being prepared as a showcase of the modern Israeli State, setting aside the historic relics, bulldozing the cobblestones, each stone replete with history, so that they may have a showcase, they may have a modern capital to receive those Jews from abroad wlio like comfort and at the same time bask in the sun of what the Zionists try to tell them is their duty. “The fighting spirit rose in us again. We met at the Agency offices and consulted on ways and means to turn the wheel of events once more. The struggle began again. The telephones rang madly. Cablegrams sped to all parts of the world. People were dragged from their beds at midnight and sent on peculiar errands. And, wonder of it all, not an influential Jew, Zionist or non-Zionist, refused to give us his assistance at any time. Everyone pulled his weight, little or great, in the despairing effort to balance the scales in our favour”6 - the scales of partition. See how Israel came into being? But that is not all, because Mr. Horowitz goes on to say: “Explanations, cajolings, pressure, and use of pull-all these he operated with skill and success. He was glued to the telephone day and night, speaking with the capitals of the Latin American republics,“- 174. I have said that this is nothing new. In fairness to the Soviet Union I shall show you what they have done-and I was in this country dealing with the question, unfortunately for me and everybody concerned. incidentally, Moshe Tox was doing this; he was in charge of the Zionist political work in Latin American countries; he was here on assignment to work on a few Latin American countries-“and his emissaries sped to every part of the continent.“7 I shall not mention any more names; I do not want to embarrass some colleagues who are here. But that was not all. 175. I knew Colonel Eddy. I think Ambassador Bush was too young to know him. He was one of the most dedicated public servants of the United States. I shall quote what he said about none other than George Wadsworth, who was one of my colleagues, the Deputy Permanent Representative during the days when Mr. Austin was the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations. He was a Senator-Senator Austin-and is reputed to have asked: “Why do you Jews and Moslems not have the Christian spirit and come together and finish this question? ” That shows he was a good man from Vermont. He thought the Christian spirit would enable them to come together and solve their problem. What “Christian spirit”, when they were cutting one another’s throats in Europe? The war was hardly over, in 194.7, when he said that. May God rest his soul for being a good Christian. 178. I was at Lake Success and I am reminded of what happened. I read this out for the record: “However, the Philippine Ambassador in Washington phoned President Roxas informing him of the great 5 See Richard P. Stevens, American Zionism and U.S. Foxign Policy 1942-1947 (New York, Pageant Press, 1962), p, 138. 6 Ibid., p. 177. 7 ibid., p. 178. because they would not receive aid. I could go on and on to show that there is nothing new. And the efforts are now snowballing. Those efforts, we are told by the Secretary- General, are efforts that may be like the lower part of an iceberg-hidden from us. 179. Only last night the Secretary-General slipped, I think, and gave away what was happening. He must be very embittered, because he has been the butt of a campaign in the Zionist press. They always remind him: “You said YOU are not going to serve again” a broken record in the Zionist press: “the Secretary-General has said time and again that he would not serve any longer: even if it were in the interest, of the United Nations for him to stay on a little longer until the Organization finds a suitable successor”. 180. Jerusalem is the symbol of Israel, a State created artificialiy, as I have shown, at the expense of the indigenous population of Palestine. They could not have been Arabs; they could not have been Moslems; they were the indigenous people of Palestine. And when Mr. Tekoah tried to prove his argument with figures I reminded him in my last intervention that in 1919 the Jewish population of Palestine had been less than 6 per cent. Mr. Wilson, a former President of the United States, was persuaded by none other than Judge Brandeis-a confirmed Zionist, a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. And on behalf of the Zionists that fellow Malcolm, originally an Armenian, persuaded Sir Percy Sykes of the United Kingdom to bring pressure to bear on the Cabinet during the First World War to make a promise to the Jews which was crystallized in the Balfour Declaration. 181. The price was that the Zionists in the United States would railroad the United States into the First World War. Mr. Wilson, if one reads the records, promised the people of the United States that he would keep them out of war, I am not talking about theory; the record stands. History speaks-and not Baroody claims, We Arabs are afraid that Jerusalem will become the symbol of a State that is set to exploit not only the Arab world economically but the whole Middle East, which is the gateway to the continent of Asia from ,the west. They have used their artists to attain their ends, 182. I was in Paris on 7 September, at Orly, and I saw the ’ Zionist emblem, which is called the Star of David. If King David only knew what the political Zionists would do I think he would shed tears to see so much suffering prevailing now in the land of Palestine. I have before me the magazine Le Nouuel Observateur. It says: %a Confession d’un Espion ha&lien “. Then there is the following: “Notre Epoque-Les Dew Violons de Shamir”. Shamir is a very proficient violinist, It goes on to say: “A sabra virtuoso says how one enters the Secret Service and.how one gets out of it,“9 8lbid, pp. 180 and 181. 9 Quoted in French by the speaker. “After the official reception in Paris, they were supposefi to visit the Sud-Ouest aeroplane factories under the aegis of a great French plane constructor, whom I shall call Serval. I had already played for Serval because Mossad had very often arranged private concerts for me at the homes of Ministers or of important persons. I met him at Bourget, and I managed to convey to him the idea that the Soviets might be interested in hearing some concerts, I accompanied the France-Soviet group in all their travels including the visits to the plants and factories, and I was able to gather interesting information on the course of the negotiations. My report filled 40 pages.“9 184. The alleged Soviet spies in London are child’s play. Listen to what is happening here: “How did Mossad cover up the project? “a 185. I will not mention now the name of General de Gaulle because, really, it is not appropriate to see how he was being maligned. But I will mention here what is said by Mr. Igal Shamir : “Is the collaboration between Mossad and the CIA permanent? “--he is asked. “Yes. Jordan, for example, the Zionist leader whom the Czechs liquidated in Prague. Jordan was at once a great agent of Mossad and a great agent also of the CIA. And I myself, in 1964, carried out a mission in the Soviet Union in order to contact clandestine Zionist organizations, and I had some very serious troubles. It was the Americans that saved my life. But I prefer not to speak of that.“9 186. At the end of the interview, he says: “I would like the article to end with a comma and not a full-stop.“9 The written comma means a pause, a short one. 187. What assurance do we Arabs have, with all those attempts, machinations and pressures? Everything is permissible nowadays. They say “Alps fair in love and war+‘. There is a war-to establish a domain, an empire, with Jerusalem as its capital, for the ingathering of the Jews from all over the world, Jews who would like to identify themselves with the countries of their birth or adoption. 195. In that connexion we have taken note, with deep sympathy and understanding, of the Secretary-General’s report of 18 February 1971 (S/10124], as also his subsequent follow-up reports dated 20 April [S/ 10124/Add.I] and 20 August [SflOl24/Add.2] respectively on the status of Jerusalem and the problem of the United Nations premises in that city. It is deplorable that despite the repeated requests of the Secretary-General for detailed information relative to the so-called master plan there has so far been no satisfactory response from Israel. 189. I maintain that when some wealthy Zionists find out that the pressures in the Western democratic countries are great, that their capital is being taxed, they look to a virgin territory, the portal of Asia. “Why not establish ourselves in Israel and make it the headquarters for economic expansion? ” That is why the Zionists do not want to accept an economic peace with the Arab States so that they can trade and flourish. 196. We hope that the Secretary-General is correct in Iris understanding, mentioned in his latest report, that 190. As I have said time and again, within thirty-two years-I witnessed it myself-they have made this city of Manhattan their own. Why should we not be apprehensive that they wiII exploit the whole of the Middle East, the whole of the Moslem world that starts in North Africa and ends in Afghanistan-Turkey, Iran, down the Sudan and the littoral of the Red Sea? Anyone would be afraid, and it is a Iegitimate fear. “the Government of Israel, having already discontinued all construction and other work within the area of the United Nations premises at Government House as constituted on 5 June 1967, will refrain from reinitiating such construction and other work within the said area until the difference of opinion reflected in the 1967 exchange of letters has been satisfactorily resolved”. 191. The hour is late. I shall have an occasion to present 197. Furthermore, the Japanese delegation wishes to more documents-documents not concocted by any propareaffirm a principle already established by a series of United gamiists but prepared by historians. I will adduce arguments Nations resolutions-namely, the desirability of establishing based on facts to show that if the members of the Council, an international regime for the city of Jerusalem. who are entrusted with questions of security, do not act the Zionists will not only treat us all with contempt but they 198. We cannot overstress the importance of a fair and unbiased approach to the Middle East question. In the view of the Japanese Government the Council should strongly oppose all unilateral measures that might alter or prejudge the status of Jerusalem. At the same time, we call upon the parties concerned to use self-restraint regarding any actions that may tend to have an adverse effect upon the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the area concerned. will continue doing what they have been doing with impunity, because they have found that through their agents, through their bankers, through politicians in almost every country, they can influence votes, can bring pressure to bear, can keep us in subjugation. And we, the Arabs, are still alive. You cannot do away with 110 million of us. And one day if the Moslem world is roused-and it might be-there could be a holocaust in certain parts. That would be deplorable, and you, the members of the Security 199. In view of the prevailing circumstances we might well ask the Secretary-General, in consultation with the President of the Security Council, to designate a representative or a mission to look into the situation and report to the Council within a reasonably short time. What is most important in this regard is securing the maximum necessary co-operation from the parties concerned so that such an instrumentality as a representative or mission would be able to pursue its mandate effectively. For that reason my delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution introduced by the representative of Somalia. C~~ncif, would have to account to your consciences.

I should now like to make a few observations on the subject under discussion in my capacity as the representative of JAPAN. 193. It is extremely disheartening to note that we are once again caBed upon to discuss this most difficult and complex probIem of Jerusalem. The root of the question runs deeply into the long history of the Holy City, which is the spiritual cradle for the Jews, the Christians and the Moslems. We, the people of Japan, with our own strong spiritual tradition, have feelings of deep sympathy with ‘the historical and cultural heritage of Jerusalem which should be shared and appreciated by all humanity without distinction as to race, language or religion. In this respect, the question of Jerusalem is unique indeed, 200. Speaking in my capacity as PRESIDENT the next name on the list of speakers is that of the representative of Israel, on whom I now call. .

I should appreciate it if it were recorded that today’s meeting of the Security Council was called over my delegation’s objections to convening a meeting after a lengthy interval in our debate on the Sabbath of Atonement and that the Israeli delegation absented itself from this meeting until the end of the Holy Day. 194. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) lucidly emphasizes in its second preambular paragraph the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and this fundamental principle is applicable in the case of Jerusalem. 203. There is a land in which the Jewish minority, several million strong, is deprived of its national and individual rights. The Jews of that country are not permitted to lead Jewish lives. They are prevented from studying the history and language of their people. It is a crime for them to possess Hebrew language textbooks and some have even been jailed for it. Jewish organizations are prohibited and Jewish schools, theatres, newspapers and publishing houses are closed. Communication with Jewish communities abroad is curtailed. The right to reunite with their families and to join their people in the Jewish homeland is severely restricted. Yet the representative of that State professed concern for a situation in which an Arab minority in Jerusalem possesses all the rights that Jews in his country are denied, basks itself in the splendour of the Arab cultural and religious heritage, enjoys freedom of movement and communication and lives through a period of unprecedented progress and prosperity. 204. There is a capital city in the world with a Jewish minority of half a million. There is not a single Jewish school in it. In Jerusalem the Arab minority which numbers less than 70,000 has 53 Arab schools. The half-million Jews have one rabbi, one synagogue and two small houses of worship. The Moslems of Jerusalem have 36 mosques and 11 prayer rooms. In addition there are 54 Christian places of worship and sanctuaries. And therefore I would simply say to the representative of the Soviet Union that as long as the situation of Soviet Jewry remains as it is today, Soviet views . . . 20.5. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of the USSR on a point of order.

I strongly protest against the insolent and cynical attacks by the Israeli representative against the Soviet Union. We are considering here not the problem of the Soviet Union but the crimes committed by the Israeli aggressors on Arab territory, in Arab Jerusalem. In making such statements, the Israeli representative is defying you, Mr. President, and is showing a lack of respect for your appeal that we should limit ourselves to the problem under consideration, namely the question of Jerusalem. 20’7. I would ask you to call the Israeli representative to order.

Please proceed. “The USSR delegation cannot but express surprise at the position adopted by the Arab States in the Palestine question, and particularly at the fact that those States-or some of them, at least-have resorted to such action as sending their troops into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed at the suppression of the national liberation movement in Palestine” [299th meeting, p. 71. 210. It does not augment the Soviet Union’s repute if it heaps invective on the Jewish people’s love of Jerusalem, of Zion, on its aspiration to freedom and equality with other nations. After all, this is what Zionism is. One cannot but express also the hope that the Soviet Union will eventually discard those patently untruthful cliches which we heard again today to which it invariably resorts on Middle East questions. The Soviet Union is fully aware who is the aggressor in the Middle East. It knows who started the war in 1948 and who has refused to terminate it until this day. 211. The fact that Arab aggression failed in 1948, that it was contained during the Armistice period and then effectively defeated in 1967 does not turn the Arab aggressor into a victim of aggression. What would the Soviet representative say if anyone were to suggest that until the Battle of Stalingrad Nazi Germany was the aggressor but that when Soviet forces succeeded in pushing the invading armies back and occupying part of Germany, it was the Soviet Union that became an aggressor? 212. The Soviet representative time and again, unfortunately, throws at us the profanity of such epithets, again reiterated today, as “Hitlerite” and “Nazi”. In it he follows those backward Arab States which, having collaborated with or sympathized with Hitler, and continued his policy of oppression against Jews, now try to sling at others the mud with which they are covered. To apply to Jews the epithet “Hitlerite” is to insult the memory of 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis. To call Jews “Hitlerites” makes ss much sense as to call Communists Nazis-and is certainly more despicable. 213. I am certain that when the Soviet Union frees itself of these blemishes, when it stops identifying itself blindly 214. For four months the Jordanian Government talked of raising the Jerusalem situation in the Security Council. For four months members of the Security Council tried to dissuade it from doing so. In fact it is clear to all that nothing has occurred in Jerusalem that warranted an urgent debate of the Council. It is clear that Jordan’s internal and inter-Arab difficulties cannot justify an attempt to mobilize the Council in opposition to Jerusalem’s happiness and progress. Our debate has demonstrated the veracity of these assumptions. The record of our discussion shows how Jerusalem has been restored to its natural state of unity and integrity, how its life and growth have since 1967 proceeded again on a normal course, how the sanctity of Jerusalem’s Holy Places has been safeguarded and strengthened, how the rights of all its inhabitants are protected. 215. Indeed, the only event to mar this situation was an Arab assault last Sunday on Christian pilgrims in Via Dolarosa resulting in the death of an Arab girl and the wounding of five American tourists. It is to be observed that this attack on Jerusalem’s peace and sacredness was carried out by a terror organization based in Lebanon, which used Lebanese media of information to confess responsibility for this criminal act. This is the same Lebanon which shed crocodile tears before the Security Council, alleging interest in the religious attributes of Jerusalem, while harbouring the machinery of terror warfare always on the ready to murder children and profane the holiness of a Sunday morning on Via Dolorosa, simply to score a point in the Security Council argument against Jerusalem. 216. One cannot but wonder whether, in lending support to Jordan>s irresponsible complaint and to the equally irresponsible draft resolution before us, sufficient thought has been given to such foreseeable consequences. 217. Having listened to the statements made today by Members of the Council, one cannot but wonder also whether the true interests of Jerusalem and its population and the situation of the holy places are in fact the considerations which guide this debate to the extent that they deserve to do. If they did, how could one explain opposition to measures undertaken by Israel since 1967 to ensure progress, prosperity and peace in Jerusalem? The following description of Israel’s measures appeared in the respected Paris daily Le Figaro on 15 September 1971: “The Government of Israel is in a position to produce substantial testimony not only on the respect accorded by Israel to the universal character of this city and the scrupulous protection of holy sites safeguarded by law passed in 1967, but also as to the living conditions of the various communities, conditions which are tranquil and which, on the contrary, have contributed to the restoration of peace and security in Jerusalem. “The Jordanian accusations, therefore, are even more extremist in that they tend to make one believe that before 1967 the eastern part of Jerusalem has known a normal situation. In fact, during the whole of the period of Jordanian administration, the Israelis were deprived of free access to their holy sites. It was made impossible for them to make use of their cemetery on the Mount of OliVeS in flagrant violation of article 8 of the Armistice Agreement. We saw their tombs desecrated and 34 of their synagogues out of 35 were destroyed.” 218. The Times of London of 14 July 1971 echoes this evaluation of Israeli actions. It declared: “There is no doubt that most East Jerusalem people are better off under the Israelis “. How can one justify then the suggestion that Israel should have refrained from taking the aforesaid measures? How can one vindicate the idea that Jerusalem should have been abandoned, abandoned in the state in which Israel found it on 7 June 1967-devastated and desecrated, stagnating in ruin, slum and squalor? Does anyone really believe that such an attitude can be accepted by enlightened public opinion? Does any one of the representatives at this table really feel that history’s verdict on such a view can be anything but negative? 219. Those who cherish Jerusalem will readily recognize what love for Jerusalem means to the Jewish people and what labour of love Israel has infused into Jerusalem. The most reverend George Appleton, the Anglican archbishop of Jerusalem, declared in London on 10 June 197 1: “Let us gladly admit that the memory of the physical city and the symbolic Jerusalem have kept the Jewish faith alive not only in one lifetime span of the first exile, but through nearly 2000 years of the second exile. One cannot help feeling that Jerusalem means more to the Jew than it does to the Christian or the Moslem.” And then he continues: “People readily appreciate Jerusalem is a living city and the development is inevitable, though it must be planned and control&d It is good to note the beginning of building plans for Arab flats and houses both in Israeli Government schemes and in West Bank initiatives. May it increase rapidly.” 220. Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher, Director of the Institute of Judeo Christian Studies at Seton Hall University, wrote in an article published in The New York Times on 26 May 1971: “Last March, talking to the multitude in St. Peter’s Square, Pope Paul spoke of ‘the recognition of the extraordinary requirements of the holy places’ is Israel and of a ‘p~~~al&n of historic and religious rights’ Monsignor Oesterreicher continues: “At present dilapidated houses in the old Jewish quarter which Arabs took over under Jordanian rule are being rebuilt. The Arab inhabitants who had to vacate them were either fully compensated or moved to new quarters. Israel thus cares for its Arab population . . .“. 221. The following declaration was issued on 17 June I971 during an international conference of evangelical Christian leaders held in Jerusalem. “We, the undersigned evangelical Christians committed to the integrity of Jerusalem the Holy City as the birthplace of our faith, want to commend the State of Israel for the scrupulous care with which it has protected Christian places and people. Taking note that throughout history Jerusalem has never been the capital of any people except for the Jewish people, we are struck by the fact that since the six-day war all people are free to worship in the place of their choice unlike the situation that obtained during the period 1948.1967. The unity of Jerusalem must be preserved at all costs.” 222. Similarly attested are the respect, protection and immunities enjoyed by the religious interests of Islam. To the declarations brought by me before the Council in previous meetings I should like to add a statement of special significance and interest in this debate. The President of the All-Moslem Congress of Sierra Leone broadcast on 30 June 1967 the following message, after a visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque : “From this Holy Place I declare frankly and with conviction that places holy and consecrated to Islam, the Mosques and the Chapels, are properly guarded and that there is no violation of them. The Gates of the El-Gazzar Mosque, as well as the Mosques of all towns and villages, are wide open and filled with worshippers who fulfil their religious obligations in complete freedom.” 223. A Moslem visitor from the Asian continent was impressed in the same manner. Mr. Salih Ututalum, a Moslem Minister in the Philippines Government, stated in a radio broadcast on 5 June 1969: “I have met with Arab leaders-those in the old Israeli territories and those in occupied territories-and have talked with them, I have discussed the Moslem cornmunities with them concerning their status and living conditions-discussed in private and in public-and judging by their frank answers I feel that everything is well. I found all Holy Places in tine condition. I have been told that the Government even contributes to the upkeep and the safeguarding of the Holy Places.” 224. If this is the situation in Jerusalem, if its population is better off now than ever before, if the universal religious 225, References were made to resolutions calling on Israel to refrain from changing Jerusalem’s status. Since when do political resolutions which reflect Israel’s known parliamentary disadvantage in the United Nations votes supersede principles of international law, justice and morality? 226. References were also made to the Geneva Convention and other similar conventions which deal with the territory of one State occupied by another in armed conflict. Those references did not take into consideration one fundamental fact. There are no State boundaries. There have been no political boundaries between Israel and the Arab Statesnot because of Israel’s fault. The Middle East has lived since 1948 in a state of continuing war and juridical chaos. The only lines separating Israel from the Arab States have been military lines-at first truce lines, then armistice lines, now cease-fire lines. The recognized boundaries are still to be agreed upon between the parties. 227. I have also heard reference to the status of Jerusalem coupled with allusions to General Assembly recommendations of 1948. Those recommendations, however, were trampled into dust by the Arab States. Besides, even those recommendations-had they been accepted and implemented-would have created only a temporary status for Jerusalem pending a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the city’s population. Since 1948 the inhabitants of Jerusalem have expressed their wishes time and again, most recently in the municipal and national elections of 1969, In 1971 there is not the slightest doubt that the great majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem long ago have established their inseparability from the State of Israel. 228. In conclusion I should like to recapitulate Israel’s policy on Jerusalem as enunciated in a letter from Isarel’s Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Secretary-General which is contained in the Secretary-General’s report of 10 July 1967 (S/8052] : “The measures taken by [the Government of Israel] to secure the protection of the Holy Places a part of Israel’s effort to ensure respect for universal interests in Jerusalem. It is evident from United Nations discussions and documents that the international interest in Jerusalem has always been understood to derive from the presence of the Holy Places. Israel does not doubt its own will and capacity to secure the respect of universal spiritual interests. It has forthwith ensured that the Holy PIaces of Judaism, Christianity and Islam be administered under the responsibility of the religions which hold them sacred. In addition, in a spirit of concern for historic and spiritual “The changes which have affected Jerusalem’s life and destiny . . . may therefore be summarized as follows: where there was hostile separation, there is now harmonious civic union. Where there was a constant threat of violence, there is now peace. Where there was once an assertion of exclusive and unilateral control over the Holy Places, exercised in sacrilegious discrimination, there is now a willingness to work out arrangements with the world’s religious bodies-Christian, Moslem and Jewishwhich will ensure the universal religious character of the Holy Places.” 237. I must also remind Mr. Tekoah that our fears are real, and not imagined; that our apprehensions are based on what has happened during the last half century. We witnessed the massacres that took place and the excessesno doubt on both sides, on the part of Arabs and Jews-during the mandatory period. The Government of the United Kingdom, the Mandatory Power tried its best to mediate; it sent many commissions. Finally it gave up; it threw the whole question into the lap of the United Nations because the Second World War had made it almost bankrupt and it could not shoulder further expenses. That was a mistake, but we are not here to bemoan what happened in the past. We are faced with a colonial question at the expense not only of the indigenous people of Palestine, but of the whole Middle East,

I call on the representative of Saudi Arabia, who wishes to speak in exercise of his right of reply.

I should like to remind Mr. Tekoah of a few simple facts, without elaborating on them, because the hour is late and I think the Council has some more business to attend to in regard to the draft resolution that was submitted to it this afternoon. 238. Therefore, since we have stated time and again that our fears are real and that the fever is there and that the abscess is festering, it is up to the United Nations-and, in particular, to the Security Council-to do something drastic, lest the situation deteriorate even further. 231. The first fact: Zionism is an Eastern and Central European movement predicated on colonizing-nay, usurping-the whole of Palestine. 239. I should like to remind Mr. Tekoah of the slaying of Count Bernadotte, of the shooting of Lord Moyne, of the blackmailing of many United Nations officials who had gone to see what was happening in the area. They even hanged British Tommies during the period between the two world wars. And Mr, Tekoah comes here and rationalizes all that has taken place on the premise that Jerusalem was divided because Jordan invaded it, and because for 2,000 years there had been an indigenous population which happened to be Arabized after the seventh century, but which still, ethnologically speaking, was the population of Palestine-the natives of Palestine, including Jews who may have been converted to Judaism. 232. Secondly, the Sephardic Jews have become victims of political Zionism, in that they have been used as a vehicle for promoting that Western European movement alien to the indigenous people of the Middle East, including our own Oriental Jews. 233. Thirdly, from a minority of 6 per cent of Palestine’s population in 1919, within 50 years-consummating their plans of immigration and political collusion-the Zionists succeeded in usurping the land of Palestine; and, unfortunately, all this has happened under the aegis of the United Nations, which set aside the principle of self-determination enshrined in the Charter. 240. When we repeat all those arguments to him, they seem to fall on deaf ears, but those are the facts, And let me remind him that that area has witnessed many invasions; and if history affords us any lessons, I think we should profit by the facts. I would not go back to before the time of Alexander the Great, but Alexander the Great took that area; then the Romans; after the Romans, the Eyzantines; after the Byzantines the Crusaders; after the Crusaders the Turks and Qre Mongols; and after the Turks and the Mongols came the Mandatory Powers from Europe. And now, it seems, it is the turn of the Eastern Europeans who happen to be Jews to try and take the land by using a noble religion, Judaism, as a motivation for their political and economic ends. 234. Fourthly , the Zionists are a foreign element in the body politic and body social of the Middle East. That element has caused an abscess, which explains why the whole region is suffering from a fever which will continue as long as that eIement is the cause of the trouble. 235. Fifthly, the objectives of political Zionism to exert continuous and unflagging efforts for the ingatheringrepeat, for the ingathering-of millions of Jews have become clear. Hence, everybody in our part of the world knows that Zionism is an expansionist movement. 241. That was by way of summing up the question before the Council proceeds to the vote. I am sure that this draft resolution before the Council will be adopted, but I beseech 236. I am not going to rebut many of the arguments that Mr. Tekoah adduced today, in spite of the fact that he 242. That is the crux of the question. Is the Council going to act, or will we let Mr. Tekoah laugh up his sleeye? And I am sure he would be justified in laughing up his sleeve, knowing very well that the various condemnations-22 or 23 of them-had meant nothing, had not changed his country’s policy by an iota. I do not blame him if he sometimes treats the whole United Nations with contempt. 243. Mr. MAGENGE (Burundi) (intquretation from French}: I should like to apologize on behalf of the leader of the delegation of Burundi, who has been called away to other pressing duties. If time had allowed, he would have preferred to reiterate the position of Burundi on the matter before the Council at present. 244. The position of my country which will dictate our vote flows from the latest position adopted by the Organization of African Unity. Once again my delegation would like to reiterate a view that has been repeatedly expressed in the past, inviting Israel to remain within the limits of the territory recognized to it legally and internationally. The occupation of territories acquired after a war cannot today be a guarantee for peace. 245. Additional reasons will lead us to vote in favour of the draft resolution in document S/10337. It is the very status of Jerusalem, which, apart from possessing its own sacred character, calls for respect from all parties and should also relieve it of the danger that anyone may’ fall into the temptation of appropriating it. 246. At a time when steps for peace are being taken everywhere, when glimmerings of a solution to the Middle East crisis appear on all the horizons, including that of Africa, surely it is imperative that the parties do nothing at the moment that might in any way contribute to making the situation in the region more dangerous. 247. The Holy Land and Jerusalem itself more than any other part of the world deserves to enjoy peace and collective protection. Jerusalem, the cradle of three religions, must be the place of pilgrimage of the adherents of all three religions. 248. The draft resolution and the amendments submitted confirm the collective feeling of the Council, namely, the need to protect the status of the Holy City, its inhabitants and its three religions on an equal footing and without excluding any. Quite justifiably, the draft resolution rejects any annexation by a neighbouring country-in this case Israel. 249. As far as my delegation is concerned, the responsi- 255. bility of this Council lies in re-establishing an atmosphere In the interest of trying to achieve unanimity I would join in asking our Syrian colleague not to insist on his conducive to prayer and meditation in the.Holy City, and amendments. If for some reason he felt that he could not this calls for complete compliance with the views of the main officials of this Organization, namely, the Secretaryaccede to this request, we certainly would reserve the right to reassess our position regarding final passage of this draft

I should merely like to say a word concerning the amendments that were submitted to us by the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic. Our colleague, Mr. Tomeh, understands that we are aware of and touched by all he says and does. He knows how much we appreciate his knowledge of the problems, particularly those confronting us now, and his disciplined mind. I must say that the political and legal, as well as logical, reasons with which he justified his amendments and the explanations he gave us have succeeded in convincing us, and in this case we shall have no difficulty in supporting them. 251. However, today it is not a question of our pronouncing ourselves on a word or selecting one word rather than another. We know, unfortunately, that this problem may well come back to this Council, and it is even foreseen and provided for in the draft resolution, and each and every one of us can then take categorical positions. 252. Today we have a draft resolution, as I said earlier, that, with its imperfections, still seems to be a valid, but the amendments submitted by Syria may, either rightly or wrongly, disturb a number of delegations-not my own. Therefore the choice is open to us. I believe that unanimity on a resolution of this nature at the present time would be of positive value-unanimity that would be a unanimity of presence and not a unanimity caused by partial absence. I think that if the vote were not unanimous it would lose its effectiveness, just as this draft resolution draws it effectiveness from its very careful and moderate nature. 253. I would urge the delegation of Syria to consider the possibility .of withdrawing its amendments. I think that, fsr from reducing the value of the vote, it would increase the value of it. We know this is a difficult problem, There is always a choice to make. We sincerely feel that it would be an act of political wisdom, and let me telI Mr. Tomeh that if he meets my appeal the French delegation will be extremely grateful to the Syrian delegation.

I certainly support the eloquent appeal just made by the Ambassador of France. Although the draft resolution submitted by our colleague from Somalia gives us some problems we had decided to vote for it. Ambassador Farah talked eloquently of unanimity of action and purpose and the same appeal has just been reiterated by our colleague from France. I think Ambassador Farah in his presentation read the mood of this Council. I think he read it well when he felt that his was a reasonable draft resolution which could get a consensus. 257. While accepting as inviolable the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by conquest, my Government has repeatedly called attention to the fact that lasting peace is altogether impossible unless there is a willingness on the part of the disputing countries to accept in their entirety the stipulations of Security Council resolution 242’(1967). But this unfortunately does not seem acceptable to Israel which, counting on its military power, rejects the political will to come to terms with its neighbours, to implement resolutions of both the General Assembly and the Security Council and to desist from adopting a posture of consummate arrogance like that to which we have been treated this evening. 258. We observe from the reports of the Secretary-General that important questions raised by him, relating to serious allegations that Israel was changing the face of Jerusalem, have gone unanswered. Meanwhile accusations continue to multiply that steps are being taken to Judaize that city and subject it progressively to a unified administration at the expense of the Arab population and their sacred places. 259. We wish to state without reservation that Jerusalem does not belong to one religious group of people only. Three of the major religions of man have their foundations in that Holy Place. Jews, Christians and Moslems look up to it as their spiritual home and rededicate themselves through frequent visits to its shrines. It is therefore essential that Arabs and Christians must have continued access to their various place of worship. But freedom of movement for religious worship as well as for other purposes cannot be possible if the international aspects of the City are altered and Jewish laws and culture imposed exclusively on it. 260. We do not want to see a continuation of such a policy. It should be swiftly put to an end. Unless this is done, and without delay, the dreadful result will be an intensification of hostility involving Moslems, Jews and Christians alike. For the preservation of international peace it is important that Israel should immediately desist from this Judaizing process and restore the Holy City of Jerusalem to its peaceful and sacred surroundings and above all to its sanctified charm. 261. For the record, my delegation would like to clarify a statement said to have been made by the President of the Moslem Congress of Sierra Leone during a visit to the State of Israel. Since my country boasts of free institutions, it does not hinder the movements of its nationals. The President of the Moslem Congress was beyond a shadow of 2s

A renowned architect-I think he is Jewish-invited by the Israeli rulers to inspect their so-called master plan, called this master plan “collective hara-kiri”. Since the weapon in the hand of Israel is not aimed at itself but at the culture and heritage of people who have lived in Palestine for 1,971 years, I thought at first that this description of “harakiri” was not relevant. However, when I heard the enlightened spokesman of Israel, speaking in his colonial language about the backward Arabs and Arab countries-after hearing the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, Somalia, Argentina, Japan, Burundi and Sierra Leone, not to mention the Syrian Arab Republic-I understood why the actions of Israel are indeed hara-kiri. 264, The battle which Israel is waging against the morality of the world and its Charter-coming here as a Member of the United Nations and saying that “This crooked majority of yours and of your Councils will never make us desist from anything we would like to do”-cannot but terminate in the victory of the morality of the world. Thus it is hara-kirl. 265. When I asked for the floor I wanted to say that the draft resolution, correctly described by the Ambassador of France as moderate and measured, is, in the opinion of our delegation-and this is why it is acceptable to our delegation in its present form-only a reaffirmation of Security Council resolution 267 (1969), giving more time to the rulers of Israel to abide by the principles of the Charter and by the Council’s resolutions; or to face the Council again-boldly as they do-and to hear from the Council what action it chooses to take. 266. That action cannot but be, in my humble opinion, a positive response to the five points put forward in my delegation’s first intervention in this Council, which the voices of the nations just heard in this Chamber have clearly and eloquently upheld. 267. I should like to reiterate that the only dignified response to the undignified defiance of Israel and its representatives is for this Council to determine that the Charter will be a living instrument in all its parts, especially its Chapter VII.

I intend to state the views of the Soviet delegation on the draft resolution introduced by the representative of Somalia. 269. But before I speak on the substance of the matter, I should like briefly to dwell on some points raised in the statement of the Israeli representative. 270. From his statement it is absolutely clear that he has forgotten nothing and learned nothing as a result of his 271. You have chosen, however, to attack only the Soviet delegation and to reply only to the statement by the Soviet representative. Why did you not refer to the statements of other representatives, too? Israel’s policy has been condemned by the representative of Belgium who adduced splendid international legal arguments. That policy has been condemned by all the representatives who have spoken here, Why, therefore, is all the fire of your anger directed always against the Soviet statement? We have said the same things as others have said. No more and no less. We have referred to the Charter of the United Nations, we have referred to the Charter of the International Tribunal, we have referred to the decisions taken by the Assembly at its twenty-fifth session reaffirming the main principle of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), namely, that the acquisition of territory by force or by war is inadmissible. We have acted strictly on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with the provisions of that Charter. 272. The Israeli representative has once again mentioned Soviet Jews. Soviet Jews are not your affair, Mr. Tekoah. Don’t poke your long nose into our Soviet garden. History shows that those who have poked their noses into our garden have lost them. As a former Ambassador of Israel to the Soviet Union you know that very well. You have defended Zionism. In this connexion you quoted the words of one of my predecessors here. Yes, those words were uttered. The statements which were made at that time were a reflection of the great humanitarian foreign policy of the Soviet Union and its people. We are internationalists, as all Communists are, internationalists. We are in favour of all peoples having the right to a self-determination and independence, At that time Israel was not an aggressor and we had one policy towards Israel. Now Israel is an aggressor; it has attacked the Arab States, seized the lands of other peoples and is attempting to appropriate them, including even Arab Jerusalem. We are internationalists and have given all our strength to the struggle for justice, equality, freedom, independence and friendship among peoples. It is for this reason that we strongly condemn the Israeli aggressors and stand on the side of the victims of aggression offering them all possible assistance and cooperation and defending their just cause in the United Nations. But Mr. Tekoah cannot understand this. Mr. Tekoah was indignant because we drew a parallel between Zionism and fascism. It is very simple. Both these ideologies are racist. Fascism taught that ,the Aryan race was a superior race, standing above all races, peoples and nations on the earth. Fascism considered that the ideal man was an Aryan with blue eyes and blond hair. I do not know 273, I can only regret that some political figures, including some in this city where we find ourselves, under the influence of and pressure from the Zionists, either for commercial or electoral considerations, trail along behind the Zionists and agree with them. But let that be on their conscience. 274. The Israeli representative referred to 6 million Jews killed by the fascists. We grieve over that. But the Israeli representative has forgotten that the Soviet Union lost 20 million Soviet people in mortal combat with fascist tyranny during the Second World War. If Hitler, who dreamed of being the ruler of the world, had conquered the whole universe, if he had captured the world, if we had not won, if there had been no Stalingrad, if there had been no battle of Kursk, if there had been no victory of the Soviet armed forces, no victory of the Soviet people who bore on their shoulders the whole weight of the Second World War and saved mankind, including the Jews of all countries of the world, from the plague of fascism, what would have been left of world civilization? You should be grateful to us, you should erect a monument to Soviet soldiers in the centre of your capital as a sign of gratitude for the fact that 20 million Soviet people, at the cost of their lives, saved the Jews of the whole world from destruction. And yet you slander the Soviet Union. This is a disgrace to the country, to Israel as a whole and to its representative to the United Nations. 275. Why do Israel and its representative need to slander us? To divert attention from the aggression in the Middle East, to obscure the situation, to conceal Israel’s violation of the elementary rules of international law, and to conceal the fact that Israel is defying the United Nations, the General Assembly and the Security Cduncil and is failing to implement the decisions of the United Nations on Jerusalem and on the Middle East in general. That is why they need to resort to slander. But you will not get very far with your slander. The just cause will triumph and today we are witnesses to the fact that no member of the Security Council who has spoken here, not even your closest friends, has taken your side, has come to your defence. Those are the facts, that is the reality. No slander against the Soviet Union, no infamous fabrications about the situation of Soviet Jews by you and by those who help you can conceal the crime of the Israeli aggressors, your aggression and everything that you are doing in the Arab lands, and your unwillingness to settle the Middle Eastern problem by peaceful political means and to withdraw Israel’s occupa-

I call on the representative of Israel who wishes to speak in exercise of the right of reply.

I shall be very brief indeed. 283. First of all, I should like to second the suggestion made here by the representative of Egypt that it is the responsibility of the Security Council and the United Nations as a whole to see to it that Charter principles are respected and implemented in the Middle East. Indeed, I should like to draw the Security Council’s attention to Egypt’s continuous policy of belligerency, Egypt’s continuous warfare, started in 1948 against Israel and still continuing today. I should like to draw the Security Council’s attention to a document signed by the Government of Egypt only a few weeks ago, on 20 August, in Damascus, that says clearly there will be no peace and no negotiations with Israel, 277. I remember that the former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel, Mr. Sharett, who was born in Russia, once invited me to lunch in New York and appealed to me, as the representative of the Soviet Government, to allow all Soviet Jews-at that time I think there were about two million-to be sent to Israel. I said to him: “Mr. Sharett, we are friends, we value friendship, we want to be friends with all peoples of the world-that is at the very basis of the Soviet Union’s foreign policy. From time immemorial, the popular approach to a friend in our country has been to consider, before giving a souvenir or a gift to a friend, whether it will be good for him or bad, Why did you come to the United States? Quite simply, to collect $500 million from the rich Jews in America, I can assure you that if our Soviet Jews go to Israel and two thirds of them are Communists and declare Israel a Soviet republic and ask to join the Soviet Union, your rich American Jewish friends will not give you one cent. I can assure you of that absolutely”. Sharett replied: “Yes, Mr. Ambassador, I never thought of the problem from that point of view”. I advised him to think about it. And he never reverted to the problem, 284. Indeed, it is high time for the United Nations to see to it that Egypt does abide by its international obligations emanating from the Charter of the United Nations. 285. As for the statement we have just heard from the representative of the Soviet Union, I can of course understand his concern and his regret that I singled out his words today for reaction, I should like to assure him that I regret having had to do so as much as he regrets having had to hear my statement in reply to his. 278. And I advise you, Mr. Tekoah, to think about it. 279. And now let us turn to the draft resolution. The Soviet delegation has already stated its position of principle with regard to the question under consideration and the illegal acts committed by Israel in Jerusalem. The arbitrary measures taken by the occupiers must undoubtedly be condemned. Nobody here has offered any justification for them. We consider that the draft resolution introduced by our distinguished colleague and friend, the representative of Somalia, is weak. But in view of the fact that the Arab delegations support it and consider it possible to adopt it, there will be no objection on our part to the adoption of the draft resolution, both the preamble and the operative part. We have, however, serious doubts concerning paragraph 5. The wording of that paragraph is not in keeping with the Charter and is not in keeping with the role which the Security Council is called upon to play in achieving a settlement of the Middle Eastern crisis, including the aspect of that crisis relating to Jerusalem. The wording of paragraph 5 of the draft resolution is so vague that it allows for too broad an interpretation. Moreover, that kind of broad interpretation would represent a departure from precedents already established in the Security Council’s work. A mission of this kind must be sent by the Security Council and must be composed of members of the Security Council. Paragraph 5 does not state this. We find this paragraph unacceptable and we shall act accordingly with regard to this paragraph when we come to the vote. 286. There were two reasons for my responding to his statement today. First, because the question of Soviet Jews, like any problem of human rights in any part of the world, is of concern to every State Member of the United Nations and to the United Nations as an organization. The representative of the Soviet Union expressed doubt whether the people of Israel would benefit by receiving the millions of our brethren in the Soviet Union who desire and speak loudly of their longing to join their families and their people in the Jewish State. I would suggest to the representative of the Soviet Union that he leave to Israel itself the decision whether it would be to Israel’s benefit to accept those millions of our brethren. I would assure him that we would welcome them, as we would welcome all our other brothers and sisters in all other parts of the world who wished to come and build with us a State of Israel after an interval of thousands of years of dispersion, exile and suffering. 287, The representative of the Soviet Union recalled conversations he had with the former Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel, the late Mr. Sharett . I too remember some conversations I had in Moscow, especially a very significant one at the time of the presentation of my credentials to the acting President of the Soviet Union, who happened to be a distinguished leader of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, He opened the conversation by recalling to me how the h&tory of the Armenian people and the history of the Jewish people have certain parallel lines, because both nations have 280. It seems to us, and we are convinced of this, that the amendments submitted by our distinguished colleague, the 288. My second reason for singling out the statement made by the representative of the Soviet Union for reaction was a rather unfortunate one. And that was that out 0f all the statements heard today it was in his words that we heard a terminology that regrettably had some Stalinist echoes, It was only in his statement that I heard epithets like 7Iitlerite”, “vandals” and “barbarians”. It was only in his statement that I heard invective and abuse about the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, Zionism. 289. And may I say to him, if he still does not know what Zionism is, that when Jews were exiled from their land as far back as the seventh century before the Christian era, when Jews sat by the rivers of Babylon and wept but also sought ways to go home, that was already Zionism, Mr. Malik. When, in a mass revolt against their exile, they returned and rebuilt the temple and re-established their State a few thousand years ago, that was already Zionism. When they were the last people in the Mediterranean basin to resist the forces of the Roman empire and to struggle for independence, that was Zionism. When, for centuries after the Roman conquest they refused to surrender and rebelled again and again against the invaders, that was Zionism. And when, uprooted from their land by the conquerors and dispersed by them all over the world, they continued to dream and strive to return to Israel, that was Zionism. When, during the long succession of foreign invaders, they tried repeatedly to regain sovereignty at least in part of their homeland, that was Zionism. And when they volun. teered from Palestine and from all over the world to establish Jewish armies that fought on the side 0f the allies in the First World War and helped end Ottoman subjugation, that was Zionism. When they formed the Jewish brigade in the Second World War to fight Hitler while certain 0f Mr. Malik’s present Arab allies supported him, that Was ~kism. When Jews went to Nazi gas chambers with the name of Jerusalem on their lips, that was Zionism. When, in the forests of Russia and the Ukraine, Jewish Partisans fought the Germans and sang of the land where Palms were growing, that was Zionism, And when Jews fO@# British colonialism while the Arabs of Palestine and the neighbouring Arab States were being helped by it, that 290. Therefore may I suggest to the representative eftlre Soviet Union if he wonders why I had to reply to him tkat he ponder and give some thought to what Zionism has been, to what Jewish history has been, and then perhapshe will understand the longings, the aspirations 0f Jewish people in the Soviet Union, of Jewish people evewhere and the hopes 0f the State of Israel for peace a,,; co-operation, for friendship and fraternity witi their neighbours and with other countries large and small,

I call on the representative oi Egypt, who wishes to speak in exercise of his right of reply,

First of all, as regards the poor non-imperialist Zionists, I have here an Agence &nce Presse dispatch from Tel Aviv dated today speaking of yesterday, that touring the colonies-the word “c0loniaa”ir mine-the Prime Minister of Israel has arrived ia fie Syrianoccupied town of Kuneitra. Visiting the new “Ianeli establishment” in the Golan Heights, Mrs. Meir is reported by Agencc France Prcssa to have said that “no foreign pressure would ever make Israel leave Jerusalem or Sharm. el-Sheik11 or the Golan Heights.” If it does not leave the occupied territory of Egypt and of all other Arab countries there can be no peace, By asserting that Israel would never leave, Mrs. Meir, in her imperial tour, is asserting that she will never accept peace. In the same story it says that she went on to address whoever was listening to her, inviting the new Soviet Russian Jews to establish themselves in the Golan Heights. She said that she would like to have here “new Israeli establishments in this region which represents great strategic value for Israel”. 293. So the Russian Jews, so pathetically invited to go to Israel, will find when they arrive that they are being brought there to be warfare material to build establish. ments, not in the part given to Israel by the 194’7 resolution, not in the whole territory of Palestine which they invaded, occupied and try to colonize now, but iaa neighbouring country which is not Palestine. They are going to be soldiers to stand guard, to occupy the land of SYnfi~ the land of Egypt. That is what they are being asked te de and that is why they are asking to go back in answer to the longing of spiritual attachment to the land of Israel.

I call on the representativeefthe Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, who wishes to sPeakin exercise of his right of reply.

I shall be very brief. First Of aUl should like to draw the attention of the Security Council to the fact that Israel, without any justification, claims to represent the Jews of the whole world, the Jews in a1’ countries. This is an absurd claim and it is surPrising *at Israel’s leaders cannot understand this. This claim has been categorically rejected not only by all States of the w”!d and by international law, but also by the ove~helrmn~ 302. The second point in that article was that the Soviet Jews lead a secluded life in Israel. That is natural. They are accustomed to a free life in a free socialist country but in Israel they have come up against a different state of affairs in which they have had to join together in a narrow community, finding themselves in an alien environment. 303. Thirdly, the article quoted the example of a highly qualified furrier from Leningrad who emigrated to Israel. For a long period he was a docker in an Israeli port. A correspondent for an Israeli newspaper met him by chance and he described the disastrous situation of this furrier, a great specialist in furs-we understand that in Israel fur coats are not needed since it is very hot there, but nevertheless he was a highly qualified specialist and he had to work as a docker. Thanks to that story by the Israeli newspaper correspondent, he got a better job. But, as the American correspondent, the correspondent of 7%e New Yorii: Z%zes, writes, this highly qualified furrier, having got a better job, complains that he has to pay almost half of his salary for his apartment. In the Soviet Union he paid only 5 to 7 per cent of his salary for his apartment. Apartments are cheaper in our country for everybody, including Jews. 297, Mr. El-Zayyat cited concrete examples of why Israel needs foreign Jews including Soviet Jews. Soviet Jews live in the Soviet Union and enjoy all the rights of citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We have more than 100 nationalities: I am a Ukrainian and I represent the Soviet Union, my deputy is an Armenian and represents the Soviet Union and the senior Counsellor is a Russian. We work in a single friendly collective like a friendly family because we have been brought up to do so by our Party, our country and our people. We have an inherent profound respect for other nationalities, for all peoples. We have no racial differences or discrimination such as exist in many other countries. 298. Why do we all hate Zionism? Because of its racism, Mr. Tekoah. Because Zionism is a racist ideology, because Zionism has a single slogan, a single credo, that of the “chosen people”, and for that reason we hate it and will fight with all the means at our disposal against Zionism and its expansionist aims. 304. So in Israd things are not as good as you and your Zionist propagandists, who attract Jews from other countries with their racist ideology of the “chosen people”, promise. Therefore there are few willing to go to your country. After hearing the explanation given to the Security Council by Mr. El-Zayyat, it is clear to all of us why you need our Jews-educated, wellqualified specialists, engineers, good officers, people who know how to work and to defend their homeland, It is to use them as cannon-fodder for aggression against neighbouring Arab countries. You will not succeed in getting them, no matter how much you slander us. 299. You have called to mind the good times when we were friends, when we voted in favour of the people of Israel being given the right to self-determination and independence. We do not deny that. We are proud of it. But HOW we strongly condemn Israel as an aggressor, as a usurper, as a plunderer flouting the rights and interests of other peoples and defiling the sacred places, the unique cultural property of the deeply-rooted ancient Arab culture, monuments to the history of mankind, We categorically oppose this policy of Israel’s, and nobody here in the Security Council is justifying you. You have satisfied yourselves of that, whether you like it or not. You have been unable to conceal the aggressive and racist character of Zionism by slandering the Soviet Union and by dragging in the non-existent question of the so-called situation of the Jews in the Soviet Union. There is no such question. The Jews in the Soviet Union enjoy exactly the same rights as any other Soviet citizen of whatever nationality. 30.5. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, who wishes to speak in exercise of his right of reply.

I have asked to speak in order to exercise my right of reply to Mr. Tekoah. There is one point on which I agree with Mr. Tekoah, and that is that the fundamental issue is really Zionism, because from a political ideology or a doctrine or a belief everything else emanates. 300. YOU need cannon-fodder for your aggression against the Arabs. But we will never meet you half way in this. Do not expect any Soviet Jews for that purpose. 307. Mr. Tekoah in a very emotional manner elaborated on what Zionism is, putting a stop after the word Zionism. But Zionism has entered history, and we the Arabs have our own view of Zionism and we are entitled to give our assessment of Zionism, 301. Even The New York Times, a newspaper which protects and defends you, recently published an article which described the situation of Soviet immigrants in Israel. First, it acknowledged that the Soviet Jewish immigrants were the most educated and cultured of the immigrants 308. Not long ago, on 26 August 1971, I addressed a letter to the Secretary-General, which appears in document S/10300. In that letter a statement is quoted which was 309. At the last meeting of the Security Council, held on 17 September, I brought to the attention of the Council a statement on 20 August 1971 by Defence Minister Dayan, in which he said that “Israel must regard herself as the permanent regime in the occupied Arab territories, and must carry out necessary projects there without waiting for the day of peace since it may be very late in coming.” I now challenge Mr. Tekoah to deny that statement, which was published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Christian Science Monitor and The New York Times of 21 August. To us, that is Zionism. 310. Mr. Tekoah is fond of making derogatory remarks about the Arabs. We heard him speak this time about Arab backwardness. I need not recall here the Arab contributions to history. However, I should like to emphasize one aspect of what Zionism is and how it appears to us. It is not only the score of villages destroyed; it is not only the geopolitical murder of a whole people, the Arab people of Palestine; it is not only the 1.5 million Arab refugees living in camps, in spite of all the resolutions of the United Nations giving them the right to return to their homeland, Palestine. It is something more. It is terrorism in its‘ugliest form directed not only against the Arabs now-when there are 13,000 to 14,000 prisoners rotting in Israeli gaols-but even against the Jews themselves. At the last meeting of the Council I quoted what the Jewish terrorists have done against Jews in order to further their aims, I quoted no less a man than Menachem Begin, who stated that in order to attract world attention to their own aims of expansion, they had exploded a bomb on a ship carrying Jewish immigrants. This is what he said: “The bomb exploded and more than two hundred Jews were killed or drowned. The British authorities noted the fact that this was not an Irgun Zvai Leumi operation; it was the Haganah which had placed the bomb .“I 0 He referred to those who had committed that act as Jewish terrorists. To us, that is Zionism. Mr. Tekoah., that is not only Zionism, but Zionist bestiality. 311. Mr. Tekoah is fond of saying time and again that in 1948 the Arabs committed aggression against Israel. I refer to a Jewish book called Sefer Hapalmah, the book of the Palmach. This is what Israel Gahli told Haganah officers on 20 October 1947: “Holding the yishuvs”-that is, the Israeli settlements- “gets US in control of all the areas which have been 10 Menachem Begin, 7%e Revolt, Story of the &gun (New York, Henry Shuman, 1951), p. 3.5. To us, that is Zionism. 312. In the same book, Yigal Allon wrote: “The truth of the matter is that the war of independence did not start on the 15th of May 1948, with the Declaration of the State and the invasion of the Arab armies. “One cannot even say that it began with the day the United Nations resolution of 29 November 1947 was announced. It is more correct to put the beginning of the war of independence as the date of arrival of the first refugee ship ‘Dahn’ after the Second World War in August 1945.” To us that is Zionism. 313. Zionism is predicated on the premise that the Arabs should not exist, that they should be dispossessed. The fact we are facing now is that Zionism has dispossessed the Arabs, is dispossessing the Arabs, and is expanding more and more. There is no other fact than that, The fact that we are discussing today the problem of Jerusalem and the expansion of Israel in one city only, Jerusalem, is another proof of what Zionism is.

I shall state the views of my delegation after the vote. In the meantime I should like to associate myself with the appeal of our French colleague to our Syrian colleague to withdraw his amendments in the interest of unanimity. 31.5. And may we please, Mr. President, move on to the vote? I -have a feeling that the discussion has moved rather a long way from Jerusalem.

In view of the lateness of the hour I should like to appeal to the members of the Council and to those who are participating in the debate to defer any exercise of the right of reply until the vote in order to facilitate our proceeding to the vote.

I should like to endorse the appeal which the representative of France has addressed to my dear friend and colleague the Ambassador of the Syrian Arab Republic to withdraw the amendments ‘he has submitted to my draft resolution. 318. Like the French delegation, the Somalian delegation would have no difficulty in accepting the substance of those amendments. But our prime purpose is to ensure that the united front this Council has adopted hitherto towards this question should be maintained. 319. AS I explained in my introductory statement the provisions of the draft resolution do not express the full range of actions which my Government would wish the Council to take in the matter. But my delegation has had tc 327. I think those reasons are of overriding importance, and I would hope, like the previous speakers, that Ambassador Tomeh will heed our appeal. 320. Members have no doubt taken note of the position of the representative of the United States on this draft resolution and on the amendments. He has made it clear that, while he would be in a position to support the draft resolution, the United States would have to reconsider its whole position should the Syrian amendments be pressed to a vote.

I have listened very carefully to the appeals made to me by the representatives of France, Itaiy and Somalia and others, and I appreciate the very constructive spirit in which they have approached the problem. In response to their appeal, I withdraw the second, third and fourth amendments which I had submitted. However, I should like a vote to be taken on the first amendment. 321. In those circumstances, and since no principles are being compromised and it is important that the Council maintain its unity of action on a delicate and pressing problem, I appeal to the representative of Syria not to press his amendments. We know that they have been submitted in good faith, with the object of clarifying and strengthening the commitment of the Security Council on this matter. I trust that he will respond favourably to my appeal so that the Security Council can proceed in unison along the road charted by resolution 267 (1969).

Before the Council proceeds to the vote, I should like to have a clarification in connexion with certain remarks made by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on paragraph 5 of the draft resolution. 330. Does the Soviet representative wish to have a separate vote on that paragraph?

Yes, Mr. President. 322. I agree with the observations of the representative of the Soviet Union in that the draft resolution I have submitted is relatively weak. But an even weaker draft resolution would be one which caused division in the Council. My delegation is conscious and appreciative of the position which the Soviet Union has taken on the Jerusalem question, a,position which is identical to that taken by my Government. But this draft resolution has the agreement of the Arab countries with which both our Governments have close relations and which are directly affected by the probIem+

Before the Council proceeds to the vote, I wish to sumrnarize the situation in respect of the draft resolution before us: (a) The draft resolution submitted by Somalia is contained in document S/10337; (b) The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic has proposed an amendment to that draft resolution. It appears as the first amendment in document A/l 0338/Rev. 1; 323. While my delegation is appreciative of the observations which the representative of the Soviet Union has made on paragraph 5 of the draft resolution, it is our hope that he will vote in favour of the draft resolution as a whole. (cl In addition, the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has indicated that he wishes a separate vote on paragraph 5. 333. It is therefore my intention first to put to the vote the amendment proposed by the representative of Syria: then to put to a separate vote paragraph 5; and, finally, to put to the vote the draft resolution as a whole.

I wished to speak just to associate myself with the appeal made by the representative of France and supported by the representatives of the United Kingdom and Somalia. 334. As there is no objection, I take it that the Council agrees to the suggested procedure and is ready to proceed to the vote. 325. I think that Ambassador Tomeh-whom I consider a very good friend-knows the esteem and the respect I have for his knowledge, for the way he deals with our affairs in this body and for whatever he does in the United Nations, which is a very serious, important and significant contribution to our work, 335. I shall now put to the vote the first amendment proposed by the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic in document S/10338/Rev.l. A vote was taken by show of hands. 326. If I am associating myself with that appeal it is because I share completely all the reasons that were put I?r favour: Argentina, Belgium, Burundi, China, France, Italy, Japan, Poland, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Syrian Arab Abstaining: Nicaragua, United States of America. The amendment was adopted by 13 votes to none, with 2 abstentions.

I now turn to paragraph 5. A separate vote on this paragraph has been requested by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 337. Rule 32 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council provides that ‘Parts of a motion or of a draft resolution shall be voted on separately at the request of any representative, unless the original mover objects.” Therefore, if I hear no objection from the sponsor of the draft resolution I shall put operative paragraph 5 to a separate vote. 338. There being no objection, the Council will now proceed to vote on paragraph 5 of draft resolution s/10337. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Argentina, Belgium, Burundi, China, France, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Somalia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and ‘Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: None. Abstaining: Poland, Syrian Arab Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Paragraph 5 was adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions.

The Council will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution, as amended, as a whole. A vote was taken by show of hands. In fnvour: Argentina, Belgium, Burundi, China, France, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Poland, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: None. Abstaining: Syrian Arab Republic. Draft resolution S/10337, as amended, was adopted by 14 votes to none, with I abstention.1 1

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes.

My delegation had no hesitation in voting in favour of the draft resolution 11 See resolution 298 (1971). “Reports suggest that one particular point may be of special urgency. This concerns Jerusalem. I call upon the State of Israel not to take any steps in relation to Jerusalem which would conflict with this principle”-that is, that war should not lead to territorial aggrandizement. “I say very solemnly to the Government of Israel that, if they purport to annex the Old City or legislate for its annexation, they will be taking a step which will isolate them not only from world opinion but will also lose them the support that they have.” /1529th pbnaiy meeting, para. 16.1 342. It has consistently been the position of my Government that no unilateral action should or can change the status of Jerusalem and that no such action should be allowed to prejudge the future of that city. In the light of this attitude, it will be no surprise that my delegation deplores the way in which Israel has acted to change the physical and demographic character of Jerusalem since the June war that we deplore the fact that Israel has failed to heed earlier resolutions of the United Nations about its behaviour in East Jerusalem, and that we hope that this attitude will now change. 343. My delegation welcomes the fact that the Council has been able to agree today, and we sincerely hope that the Government of Israel will heed the resolution’s call. We also hope that the Secretary-General will receive the full co-operation of the Government of Israel in the task he is given in paragraph 5 of the resolution. 344. In the course of the debate the representative of Syria has twice referred to the earlier Security Council resolutions and quoted, in connexion with them, parts’of the recent Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on South West Africa. The attitude of my delegation to these and other aspects of the Advisory Opinion will be made clear when the Opinion is under discussion in the Council. In the meantime I will say only that our views on the legal force in terms of the Charter of the earber resolutions and of the resolution just adopted by the Council continue to be determined in accordance with the criteria that we have applied hitherto I

I call on the representative of Jordan.

The resolution adopted by the Security Council tonight is taken by my Government to represent a landmark, inasmuch as its adoption represents the collective will of its members, including the permanent members. There have been many resolutions before by the General Assembly, representing the conscience of mankind, and by the Security Council, representing as it does its effective and executive instrument. 347. Israel has chosen on this occasion, as on all previous occasions, arrogantly to disregard the collective will of (d) There should be roles for both Israel and Jordan in the civil, economic and religious life of the City. 353. Earlier in 1969 in this very hall, my distinguished predecessor, Charles Yost, addressed himself more specifically to the kinds of matters which are responsible for our presence here today. He said-and let me just review it briefly: 348. My Government deems it its duty on this solemn occasion to express to the President and the members of the Council and to the esteemed Governments they represent its deepest appreciation and gratitude for the understanding and concern they have shown towards the fate of that Holy City. I also wish to thank most deeply the representative of Somalia, the sponsor of the resolution, and our brothers and colleagues who have defended with great conviction the cause of Jerusalem as participants in the debate. “The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the Citv are detrimental to our common interests in the City.” [1483rd mel?ffug-, para. 97.1 349. By the same token, in recognition of the fact that the Security Council is not a debating club but is the highest executive organ of the United Nations, upon whose power and prestige the fate of peoples, civilization and peace depends, it is the earnest hope of my Government, and of almost all governments of the world as well, that the Security Council will take whatever executive steps it deems necessary to ensure compliance with its unanimous will and to compel Israel to desist forthwith from its frantic and illegal measures to create a new fait accompli in Jerusalem. He noted as well that the United States considers that part of Jerusalem which came under Israeli control like other areas occupied by Israel in the June 1967 war, as occupied territory and thereby subject to the provisions of international law governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. 354. We regret Israel’s failure to acknowledge its obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention as well as its actions which are contrary to the letter and spirit of this Convention. We are distressed that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem give rise to understandable concern that the eventual disposition of the occupied section of Jerusalem may be prejudiced. The report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization, 1970-1971, reflects the concern of many Governments over changes in the face of that City. We have on a number of occasions discussed this matter with the Government of Israel, stressing the need to take more fully into account the sensitivities and concerns of others. Unfortunately, the response of the Government of Israel has been disappointing. 350. My Government is convinced that, in the absence of an affirmative answer signifying Israeli compliance with the Council’s resolution, the last and only avenue left is the application of Chapter VII of the Charter, as I requested in my main statement.

Once again we have met to consider Jerusalem, an issue of long standing in this body and other organs of the United Nations. In our view, the ultimate status of Jerusalem should be determined through negotiation and agreement between the Governments of Israel and Jordan in the context of an over-all peace settlement, taking into account the interests of its inhabitants, of the international religious communities who hold it sacred and of other countries in the area. 355. All ef us understand, as I indicated earlier in these remarks, that Jerusalem has a very special place in the Judaic tradition, one which has a great meaning for Jews throughout the world. At the same time Jerusalem holds a special place in the hearts of many millions of Christians and Moslems throughout the world. In this regard, I want to state clearly that we believe Israel’s respect for the Holy Places has indeed been exemplary. But an Israeli occupation policy made up of unilaterally determined practices cannot help promote a just and lasting peace any more than that cause was served by the status quo in Jerusalem prior to June 1967 which, I want to make clear, we did not like and we do not advocate the reestablishing. 352. In December 1969, Secretary Rogers stated: ‘&We have made clear repeatedly in the past two and one-half years that we cannot accept unilateral actions by any party to decide the final status of the City.“12 The Secretary then delineated a number of principles which m our view would provide an equitable framework for a final Jewish settlement: (0) Jerusalem should ‘be a unified City; 356. In conclusion, I would. note that the resolution before US today, as in the past, calls for a report on the situation in Jerusalem. We have supported this resolution 12 See Offkin! Records of the Security Council, iWnty4fth Year, Supplement for January, February and March 1970, &xxmcnt S/9588.

I have asked to speak in order to explain the vote of my delegation on the resolution just adopted by the Council. 358. In view of the considerations that my delegation presented in a statement earlier today we supported the draft resolution submitted by the delegation of Somalia, although we thought that stronger terms and measures should have been included in it taking into account Israel’s continuous disregard of the earlier resolutions of the General Assembly and the unanimous decision of the Security Council pertaining to the situation in occupied Jerusalem, For that reason my delegation supported the first amendment and was prepared to support the other three amendments introduced by the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic which would have improved the text of the resolution. 359. Concerning my delegation’s abstention on paragraph 5 of the resolution, it was motivated by our deep conviction that this paragraph, as formulated in the resolution, does not assert in the way it should the competence of the Security Council in matters concerning peace and security and thus detracts from the firmness of the Council’s eventual action on the matter,

I should like first of all to thank Ambassador Tomeh for his understanding, as well as to thank all those who endorsed my appeal-m particular Ambassador Farah, for after all this resolution was the fruit of his work. 1 had sought unanimity on the vote and I felt I had to give an example of that. It is for that reason that I voted in favour of operative paragraph 5, despite its flaws, On this point I share some of the reservations that were expressed by Ambassador Malik and other delegations, although the text Was considerably improved by the substitution of the words “in consultation” for the words “after consultation”. 361. Finally, I should like to say that I share the point of view that was expressed by the representative of the United Kingdom concerning the nature of Security Council resolutions and also with regard to the reservations that he made concerning the Opinion of the Court.

I call on the representative of Israel.

I should like, first of all, to express my ‘delegation’s profound regret that the debate initiated by Jordan’s complaint against Jerusalem’s present state of integrity, peace and sanctity should end in a meeting the convening of which constituted an act of disrespect for the sanctity of the Jewish Sabbath of Atonement, 364. The debate just concluded has confirmed that Jerusalem, restored to its unity and inviolability, lives today in 365. However, as I indicated in my statement cl l6 September [ISSOth meeting], whatever the rights sad wrongs of the positions expounded in debate, Israel faces ia the Council foregone conclusions, and in the present caSe even a resolution formulated in advance. 366. That resolution has now been declared adopted, 1t is tantamount to a call to stifle Jerusalem, to smother its growth and development. Israel’s attitude towards it willbe the same as the attitude Security Council members Weald adopt to a resolution containing a call to stifle Wasbiagton, Moscow, London, Paris or any other capital of a State Member of the United Nations. 367. The resolution calls upon Israel to refrain from steps that may purport to change the status of Jerusalem,‘lhere is only one status of Jerusalem which is legitimate, moral and just. It is Jerusalem’s natural status, a city united aad peaceful; its life and development normal and unscatherJ;its sanctity vindicated; the rights of its inhabitants secure, Aad that status could not be changed by nineteen years of mutilation, destruction and sacrilege, resulting from Jot. dan’s aggression against Israel and Jerusalem in 1948, ‘But status cannot be modified by politically motivated resolu. tions. It is that status that Israel will uphold and preserve in its capital, for the good of all its inhabitants, for theglory of all faiths. 368. The Security Council’s resolution reflects, among others, the views of such States as Somalia, its sponsor, and the Syrian Arab Republic, which tried to make it even more impalatable-States which openly deny Israel’s right to independence and sovereignty. There are views deserving of greater esteem than those. There are views more in conformity with international law and morality than those. The Bible states, in verses 3 and 6 of psalm 122: “Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together.” “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.” It is this view that shall prevail.

I tmnkthatlhe fact that my very brief explanation of vote by chance comes after the statement-traditional by now-of the Israeli representative gives more meaning to what I am going to say. 370. My delegation abstained from the vote for the reasons we explained in our statement today before *e Council, We believe that the Security Council should have started from paragraphs 6 and 7 of its resokrtion 267 (1969), adopted unanimously by it. On the other hand,

Before I conclude this meeting, I alQtld like to take note of the fact that the representative Of Israel has expressed his regret that this meeting of the cWncil should have taken place on a holy day of his religion. At the same time I must remind the members of *e Council that in extraordinary circumstances the Council The meeting rose at Il.15 pm. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Naiionr, Sales Section, New York or Genew. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Ler publications der Nations Unier sont en vente duns les libroirier et ICI q gencer d&posit&es du monde entier. Informez-vous auprkr de votre librairie ou q drersez-vow 6: Notions Unies, Section der ventes, New York ou Genbve. KAK ilOJY’-lHTb M3AAHGIR OPTAHHSAUHH 06bEAHHEHHblX HALlHti COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NAC’IONES UNIDAS Los publicacioner de las Nociones Unidas est6n en venta en librerior y cosas distribuidorar en todos porter del mundo. Conrulte o IU librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Seccibn de Ventor, Nuevo York o Ginebre. Litho in United Nations, New’York Price: $U.S. 2.00 (or equivalent in other currencies) 82085-August 1973-2,050