S/PV.1644 Security Council

Members of the Council are also aware that during our meeting yesterday I received letters from the representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic and Saudi Arabia in which they asked to be allowed to participate without vote in the current Council discussion of the complaint by Lebanon which is inscribed on the agenda. Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/l 644) I. Adoption of the agenda. 2. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 25 February 1972 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10546). 4. If there is no objection, I intend to invite the representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic and Saudi Arabia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding that they will be called upon to take places at the Council table when it is their turn to address the Council. 3. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 2.5 February 1972 from the Acting Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10550). At the invitation oj’ the President, Mr, G. J. Tomeh (@Can Arab Republic) took the place reserved for him. 7Re meeting was called to order at 9 p.m.

The Security Council will now continue its consideration of the items inscribed on its agenda. The first name on the list of speakers is that of the representative of Lebanon, on whom I now call.

The Council meets tonight at the urgent request of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon, who earlier in the evening informed the President of certain incursions of Israeli forces into Lebanese territory during the day.

I thank you, Mr. President, and the members of the Security Council for meeting on Sunday evening. I shall not apologize for asking for this meeting at such an hour on such a day. If it were not for important, indeed overriding, considerations we would have abstained from imposing on you the ordeal of such a meeting. But we know it is the call of duty which imposes on us the obligation to make sacrifices and to come at any time when the peace and security of any State Member of the United Nations are at stake. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The Situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 25 February 1972 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10546) The Situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 25 February 1972 from the Acting Pennanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/l 0550) 7. My colleague Ambassador Kabbani yesterday presented to the Council the case of Lebanon. He related to the Council the events that took place on 2.5 and 26 February. Those events resulted from a naked Israeli armed attack against Lebanon, a premeditated and unprovoked attack against the peaceful country of Lebanon, which is well known here in the United Nations and in the world for its efforts in the service of peace. We are here again tonight because of new developments, the new Israeli attacks of a massive character against my country-I would say, the continuation of the aggression of Israel against Lebanon.

Members of the Council are aware that these items were inscribed on the agenda at the request of the delegations of Lebanon and Israel. With the consent of the Council and pursuant to the requests contained in documents S/10549 and S/l0551 of 25 February 1972, I would invite the representatives of Lebanon and Israel to 9. I should like now to acquaint the Council of the new facts-facts about events that happened today. At 8.30 this morning, Sunday, 27 February, squadrons of the Israeli Air Force and heavy units of Israeli artillery bombarded areas of southern and south-eastern Lebanon. Heavy bombardments were directed at the villages of Al-Habbariya, Kfar Hamman, Rashaya-el-Fakhar and the heights and valleys surrounding those towns. 10. At noon today Lebanon time, units of the Israeli armoured forces crossed the border to the villages of Kfar Shouba, Kfar Hamman, Rashaya-el-Fakhar, and Al- Habbariya. They were engaged by units of the Lebanese armed forces. One Israeli tank was destroyed at the entrance of Rashaya-el-Fakhar. 11. At 2 pm. today units of the Israeli armed forces were able to occupy the village of Rashaya-el-Fakhar. They destroyed eight houses and set them ablaze. At the same time units of the Israeli Air Force bombarded the heights north of Rashaya-el-Fakhar. Lebanese anti-aircraft defences forced them to retreat from Lebanese air space. 12. At 3.5 p.m. units of the Israeli Air Force composed of Skyhawk jets bombarded a Palestinian refugee camp at Al-Nabatiya. It is so far known that at least 10 persons were killed and 30 wounded, most of them children. 13. At 6,25 p.m. units of the Israeli armed forces were proceeding to the villages of Al-Fraydis and Al-Habbariya. They were engaged by the Lebanese Army. One Israeli tank and two Israeli troop carriers were destroyed. Ten casualties were inflicted on the Israeli soldiers. An Israeli helicopter was seen evacuating the casualties. Two Lebanese soldiers were wounded. One Lebanese tank was hit. 14. The latest information, which I have just received, states that the three towns of Kfar Shouba, Fardis, Al-Habbariya and Rashaya-el-Fakhar are occupied by the invaders. Those attacks have resulted in the mass destruction of scores of houses in the various towns. The population of the area, taken by panic, has started a large-scale exodus toward the central and the northern parts of Lebanon. Not only are these acts of aggression by Israel-which the Israeli representative yesterday denied were continuing-in fact continuing, but the Israelis are projecting further attacks against Lebanon, because they have been engaged, as we were told yesterday, in opening some roads in the area to prepare for such further attacks. 15. On 14 January we brought to the attention of the Security Council [see S/10509/ a warning that was relayed to the Lebanese authorities through the Israeli-Lebanese In the same communication, we went on to state: “Such threats, added to Israel’s repeated violstleas of Lebanon’s territorial integrity, gravely endailger iliternational peace and security. By following this dangerous course, Israel assumes full responsibility for her acts under the Charter and International Law. “The Lebanese Government forewarns that unless lsrael desists forthwith from pursuing the perilous course tie has undertaken, the Security Council will be duty bound to shoulder its responsibilities.” 16. The crude Israeli warning, which reminds us of the language of the barbaric Middle Ages, has been carried through, and we have presented to the Council enou& evidence, yesterday and today, to substantiate our sme. ments with regard to the situation prevailing ao!v in Lebanon. The Council is facing a situation where one small. defenceless, peaceful country has been subjected for manr years to merciless and murderous attacks and aggression b a militaristic State drunk with its own military power. arrogant in its attitude towards the United Nations arid&? Security Council and defiant of its decisions. We believe lb: time has come for the Council to take action against GX aggressor. The Council, as we related yesterday, hu adopted several resolutions solemnly warning Israel a&tins,1 B repetition of its acts of aggression against Lebanon. Bti; what was the result? Further attacks and further aggrec sion. 17. The Council has warned Israel that if it repeats the= attacks, these aggressions, against Lebanon, which tk Council has stated it regards as intolerable and ~acsp:- able, the Council will have to take steps or measures en&~ the pertinent Articles and provisions of the Charter. ~VC think that the time for that has come. 18. I do not want to go into any more details. Wha! LP? have said constitutes, we think, *sufficient proof for 1F.c Council to act and to act promptly in order to Icrce tic invader, the aggressor, to withdraw its troops inuncdiat:!~ from Lebanese territory. The time has come not 01th in: force the aggressor out of Lebanese territory but also. dl~ subsequent stage of the Council’s deliberations, to take &a necessary measures that the Council has stated 011 prrriou.l: occasions it would take in order to forestall any fulurc KG of aggression against Lebanon by Israel. 19. Mr. ORTIZ DE ROZAS (Argentina) fi?zterpreh?LG: from Spanish): Once again an incident in the hliddlc ta: with serious implications is taking up the attention OT b* Security Council and is again endangering the precafir2 situation prevailing in that region. Yesterday we hs3 1 26. In accordance with the second principle, proportionality, the measures adopted in self-defence must be of a similar nature or reasonably in keeping with the means used in the illegal act against which action is being taken. Any use of force on a considerably larger scale or on a scale which goes beyond the events or the provocative circumstances obviously exceeds the general framework of selfdefence and is considered illegal in accordance with the uses and practices of the law. 21. Let us confine ourselves to the facts. What provoked this action by Israel? According to the representative of that country in his letter of 24 February [S/10543/ : “Last night, 23 February, shortly before midnight, two Israeli civilians from Zara’it village were killed, when a bazooka rocket, fired by a terror squad who had penetrated from Lebanon in the Metulla area (Upper Galilee), hit the car in which they had been travelling from the town of Nahariya to Zara’it, about four kilometres west of Metulla village. 27. The United Nations Charter too recognizes in Article 51 the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in case of an a.rnmed attack against a Member State. But it also requires that the measures thereby taken be reported immediately to the Security Council. 28. It is regrettable to note that neither of the principles to which I have referred is applicable in the case before us. It cannot be validly asserted that the vast military operation launched against Lebanon is in strict keeping with the principle of need or that the deployment of large units of aircraft, infantry and artillery is in proportion with the means used by a group of fidayeen whose repression in Israeli territory-and it is Important to bear this in mind-would normally have required mere police action. “The terrorists had also strewn nails on the road on both sides of the spot where the car was hit, which punctured the tires of the vehicles that arrived on the scene after the murderous attack.” 22. In another letter, dated 2.5 February [S/10.550], the same representative told us: “In addition to the . . . murderous attack of 23 February referred to in my aforesaid letter of 24 February 1972, two further armed attacks have since been committed against Israel from Lebanese territory. 29. Proportion has not been respected, either in terms of the scale of the action, or even in terms of the duration. Faced with this situation, we must conclude that the events described in the complaint are in the nature of a punitive expedition, and these acts, as well as preventive war, are completely incompatible with the purposes, principles and tenets of the Charter. “On the night of 23 to 24 February 1972 two rocket launchers were discovered that had been set up by terrorists from Lebanon, ready to be fired against the town of Acre. 30. Today, the news is even more alarming, We have just heard a report from the Ambassador of Lebanon on further air and artillery attacks. Even assuming that their purpose was solely to punish those who carried out those incursions, it does not seem logical to regard aerial bombing or artillery fire as the most appropriate means to achieve this objective. When planes bomb or when artillery is used at long range, the projectiles make no distinction between fedayeen and peaceful civilians. Both are victims. “On 24 February at 1940 local time, terrorists who had penetrated into Israel from Lebanese territory opened fire against an Israel Border Police patrol, travelling along the road near the village of Biranit (Upper Galilee). Eightof the Israeiis were wounded by this fire, and one of them subsequently died of his wounds.” 23. It is of course regrettable that those lives were lost and it is obvious that the Government of Lebanon has an obligation to prevent incursions of this kind from its territory. 31. We have said here and elsewhere in the United Nations that incidents of this kind, which are not mere border skirmishes, can precipitate yet a further conflict in the Middle East, with unpredictable consequences and implications. We have also said that unfortunately they may be repeated constantly until such time as a lasting peace is established in the area by complete compliance, on a reciprocal basis and with no restrictions; with Security Council resolution 242 (1967). 24. But here a prim‘ary issue should be brought out very clearly. Israel alleged prior provocation and consequent self-defence in order to justify its attacks against various points in Lebanese territory which serve as a base for the fcdayeen. Self-defence and legitimate self-defence are concepts recognized in international law for responding to illegal or aggressive acts committed against States, provided that two indispensable requisites are met: need and proportionality. 32. But in this painful crisis we have warned that time does not work for peace. On the contrary, emotions may 33. AS for the present, the Security Cmncil should adopt a resolution requiring a cessation of all military operations 1 at present under way, and the complete and immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces which may be in Lebanese territory. 34. My delegation deplores acts of violence perpetrated against Lebanon and would support a draft resolution along those lines. 35, Mr, TOURE (Guinea) fiuterprctation from French): In a letter dated 25 February 1972 /S/10546/, the Permanent Representative of Lebanon requested an emergency meeting of the Security Council. That request was motivated and justified by the violent aggression snd the violation of the territory of Lebanon by the Israeli army at dawn on 24 February 1972. 36. Forty-eight hours after the request was filed by Lebanon, Israeli aggression against Lebanon is continuing, with. the deployment of air forces and bombardments by Israeli artillery. 37. In considering the facts and the way events have occurred, we cannot but note the premeditated nature of the Israeli attack of 24 February 1972 against the southern part of Lebanon. In point of fact, according to present information from all sources, all of which corroborates the statements made before the Security CounciI by the representative of Lebanon during its 1643rd meeting, more than 50 armoured cars, backed up by 100 Mirage and Phantom jets, Slcyhawks and helicopters, penetrated Lebanese territory to the villages of d’Arta Chaab and Ain Ata, creating a vast front of attack. The Israeli artillery at the same time bombarded the region, while napalm was spread from planes all over the countryside and the crops, 38. Following up this attack on a scale unprecedented since the June 1967 war in the Middle East, Israeli bulldozers went into action simultaneously to destroy houses and to open access roads for the armoured cars, thus preparing the way for future new aggression. 39. The results of this military operation, of a type at which the Zionist State is a past master, are quire clear: the toll, for the time being, is more than 10 civilians killed and more than 25 dwellings destroyed, 40. The representative of Israel in the Security Council invoked legitimate self-defence and the excuse of reprisals in an effort to justify a flagrant act of premeditated aggression against Lebanon, whose peaceful posture, which has never been denied, was surely the easy target chosen by the Israeli aggressor in order to intimidate the Arab resistance and at the same time to maintain the llecessdry degree of blackmail pressure so as to perpetuate its occupation of Palestine. 4.2. This is the rule of the world of injustice in which we live as the result of which Asia, the Middle East and Africa continue to be bowed down by arbitrary and brutal force. Palestine, Zimbabwe, Namibia, the Portuguese Territories of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau) and other colonial enclaves are and remain one and the same thing. 43. The African countries, and singularly the Republic oI Guinea, are familiar with the so-called policy of reprisalis. this policy that has been erected a system by yet another. Portugal, which draws all its forces from the support it receives from Western Powers in NATO. We know the meaning of all the armed incursions, the intimidations and the large-scale ventures: they are all designed to put dower the impetus of the liberation struggle of the subject peoples. 4.4. The problem of the Middle East must be at ica% partially solved by Security Council resolution 242 ( 1 WI? 1 and the Jarring Mission. But today, more than at any other time, it appears to us that there is an imperative need for us to ask ourselves whether the task entrusted to mediatcur Jarring by the great Powers has not thus been put to a test which might well compromise its continuance. The concomitant fact of the Israeli attack against Lebanun. violent and intimidating by nature, and the presence uf Mr. Jarring in Israel since the very outset of that aggression. gives one food for thought. 45. Hatred engenders hatred. Coming generations, born under arbitrary occupation and terror, can only be the fruit of violence. The Palestinian resistance has sworn to wage the struggle a hundred years, if necessary. The Security Council, which is the body responsible for maintaining peace and security throughout the world, cannot be a mutt witness to this situation of war-which, it InLIst b admitted, is no longer an embryonic war-in the Middle East. 46. The gravest aspect is the threat of the Israeli authorities to occupy by hook or by crook the south of Lebanun. with the alleged aim of neutralizing the resistance activities of the Palestinian fighters. The events which we ]lave lived through in these seventy-two hours and which we are still 47. Before the punitive expedition of Israel against Beirut international airport in December 1968, Lebanon-which everybody unanimously recognizes as having a permanently peaceful attitude-had sent 29 letters to the Security Council. From 1969 to February 1972, three meetings of the Security Council were held and two resolutions were adopted. But today we are forced to face the fact that in the Middle East, and particularly on the Israeli-Lebanese frontier, an atmosphere of terror persists which is purposely maintained and nourished. Soon a quarter of a century will have elapsed, and the situation remains the same. The Arab people, the people of Palestine, are asking that justice be done. 55. In the course of Saturday’s meeting, a number of speakers said that the armed actions against Israelis of which Israel had been complaining had all occurred within Israeli territory, and the astounding view was expressed that for that reason Lebanon could not be held accountable for these attacks and murders. 48. In his statement at the 1643rd meeting of the Security Council, the representative of Lebanon, Ambassador Kabbani, emphasized the scope of the aggression which is being suffered by Lebanon, and the contrast between the seriousness of the attack and the so-called action on the part of the Palestinian fighters. He denied that the acts with which they were charged had taken place on occupied territory, stating that they had rather taken place on occupied territory where the Lebanese authorities, it goes without saying, have no control. 56. We do not ask the Lebanese Government to assume responsibility for security in Israeli territory. There is no doubt but that this is the duty of the Government of Israel, but we do insist that the Lebanese Government carry out the duty incumbent on it, namely, keep order in its own house in matters that affect Israel. 57. What I have in mind, and we have said it often enough, is the bounden duty of the Government of Lebanon to put an end to the activities of the terror organizations established in Lebanon which use their bases in Lebanon for attacks against Israel. To close one’s eyes to these facts, which are there for everybody to see, is to give active encouragement to the terrorists in their murderous activities. 49. The representative of Lebanon asked the Security Council to prevent Israel from acting in this way, from breaching and threatening the peace. Today the Ambassador of Lebanon has come from his sick bed to repeat the same grievances to us. 58. It is completely inadmissible to permit Lebanon, a Member of the United Nations, to continue in its role of a sanctuary for terror and murder directed from its soil against another Member State. 50. The least which can be demanded of Israel by the Council at this stage of the debate is to end immediately the armed attack directed against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon, to withdraw immediately mid unconditionally all Israeli troops from Lebanese territory, and also, at a subsequent stage naturally, to demand the imposition on Israel of the relevant sanctions provided for in the United Nations Charter. 59. Everybody present here knows full well the true state of affairs. The fact that terrorists from Lebanon infiltrate and penetrate into ‘Israel and there lay mines or set up Katyusha rocket launchers or use bazookas against schoolbuses and then return to Lebanon does not relieve the Government of Lebanon of its obligation to stop these attacks. 51, The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of Israel.

The statements I made at the I643rd meeting, on Saturday, 26 February, that there were then no Israeli forces in Lebanon were perfectly true in every respect. What has happened since? 60. Anybody here who chooses to ignore this basic, elementary and obvious aspect of the problem and limits himself to stressing the fact that the terrorist actions have been carried out in Israel deliberately sidetracks and confuses the issues, mentions the results but ignores the cause, and, worst of all, encourages the terrorists to persist in their murderous activities. It is against the cause of the situation that the Security Council should move. 53. Early this morning the terrorists, from their bases in Lebanon, opened fire with mortars and automatic weapons on our troops that were then outside Lebanon. The fire was returned and appropriate action taken against those terrorist bases, in the exercise of the inherent right of self-defence as recognized by the law of nations and embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. 61. It is the co-operation between Lebanon and the terrorists that the Council must deplore and denounce. Ii is Lebanon that the Council must call to order for its aiding and abetting of terror action, and not Israel for its lawful and justified reaction. 54. Ensconced as the terrorists are in fortified positions located in difficult mountainous country, no action against 63. As early as three years a$o the French journalist Yves Cau wrote in Le Figaro of 9 January 1969-this is an English translation: “Any foreign observer landing in Beirut can within twenty-four hours contact the representatives of the three big organizations PLO, Al-Fattah and PLPF”. Now, having contacted these gentlemen, what would the observer see? He would see the headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Popular Front-the PLPF-in the very centre of Beirut, in the building of the Lebanese weekly Al Hurriyn. He would see the office of Al-Fattah in Tarik el-Abiri, on the road to Beirut airport. And he would see the office of the Palestine Liberation Organization-the PLO-near the UNESCO building in Beirut. He would ahO see training camps where the terrorists are openly being prepared for their murderous activities. 64. The Lebanese Government is, of course, fully aware of this, and maintains constant contacts with the terror organizations. 65. Even before the signature of the Cairo agreement of 3 November 1969 the Lebanese Government went on record in support of the terror organizations. So, for example, the then Prime Minister of Lebanon, Mr. Abdalla el-Yafi, declared on 30 December 1968 while in office as Prime Minister, “The &@een activities are legal and sacred”. Less than a year later the Cairo agreement was signed. I quoted a few points from it yesterday, Let me refer to some more, to show not only that freedom of action is accorded to the terror organizations by the Lebanese Government-which is bad enough, and unlawful-but that moreover there is active co-operation in the field between the terrorists and the Lebanese army and other Lebanese authorities. 66. There is a provision in the agreement for the design* tion of frontier access points and the facilitation of crossing for the fe&yeen. Transport is provided by Lebanon to Arkoub in the southern region for the fi&yeel?, Joint patrols are provided for, consisting of Lebanese soldiers and the feclayeen. There is a provision for the apportionment of frontier positions between the Lebanese Army and the fe&yeen. The Lebanese Army co-operates in the installation of supply, rest and aid posts for the fedayeen. 67. On 7 January 1970, after the signature of the Cairo agreement, the Lebanese Minister of the Interior, Kamal Jumblatt, was reported in the newspaper El-Hayat of Beirut as saying: “Lebanon’s participation in the general Arab framework must find its expression in granting the fedaveen facilities cn the border.” “Lebanon considers the fedayeen as an allied and friendly army. We work for enabling them to do what they have to, in accordance with their national duty, in certain regions.” 69. The whereabouts and the activities of terrorists in Lebanon outside Beirut are also no secret. 70. On 16 January 1970 we could read in Z%eNew York Times that they maintained their bases in the Arkoub area of southern Lebanon, inchIding the hills immediately south of Hasbayya, and that they had established headquarters in the small town in the Arkoub region. 71. The correspondent of Al Amal of Beirut painted the following more detailed picture after touring southern Lebanon in December 1969: “The feduyeen used to pass along the route starting at el-Rafleh in Syria via Deir-el-Ashair, Yanta, Kufr-Qaog, &ha, Rasheya al-Wadi, Bait-Lahya, Ein-Hurshe, Ein-Aata, Kfar-el-Zaite. . . . The road from Ein Hurshe to Kafir is a dirt track which has been paved by the Lebanese Army to make sure that the fedayeen will have a road of their own so that they will not be in need of using the civiljan highway which runs from Rasheya-el-Wadi Junction to Kukaba-Hasbayya Junction. The fedayeen then make their way to Hasbayya, where from some of their groups turn to bases in Ein-Kinya, Shuya and Shouba”--meationed this evening. “Other units turn to el-Habbariya”-also mentioned tonight-“where the principal base of most of the fedayeen organizations operating in southern Lebanon is situated. “From el-Habbariye the feduyeen pass the front hills which face Israel in Rashaya el-Fakhar, Kafr-Hamman and Kafr-Shouba.” The names of all these places have been mentioned tonight. “The fedayeen now pass with their vehicles through Hasbayya-el-Habbariye highway. It has been reported that the Lebanese army is occupied now in paving a special road from Hasbayya to el-Habbariye in order to free the fedayeen from using the highway. The supervision on the passing of the fedayeen from De+& Ashair to Hasbayya is carried out by common roadblocks of the Lebanese army and the fedayeen.” 72. The daily newspaper El-Jaridu wrote on 1 February 1970: “The Minister of the Interior of Lebanon has received a report stating that fedayeen in Rashaya have rented an office next to the Government hospital.” I am quoting a Lebanese newspaper. “The report said thr\t the cars of the fedayeen occupy the parking places of the hospital physicians.” Even there they have parking problems. “The report details the consequences and dangers (a which the hospital and patients are exposed. It ends with a request to transfer either the office of the terrorists or the hospital to another location.” “South Lebanon member of Parliament, Edmond ffayek, stated that the region of el-Arkoub, a part of the Rashaya region and most of the district of Hasbayya, are under the rule of the jkdayeen and he added that the fedayeen in those areas continue to get heavy military equipment OF the type which is deployed by the regular army,” 74. The Lebanese daily El-Jarida of 8 March 1970 describes the jtdayeerz operations which are carried out from southern Lebanon as follows: 80. Apparently, not everybody in Lebanon thinks as Prime Minister Salam does. The newspaper Lissan eZHa1 of Beirut, for example, writes on 13 January 1972: “The fedayeen cross the line to Israel and return to their bases or sometimes they station their rockets’ launchers on the border, directed against an Israeli settlement and retreat to their bases.” “Sound logic and the general Arab interest make it imperative to prevent actions on the Lebanese border. Why does this irresponsible jihad continue and cause serious damage to Lebanon? ” Where are their bases? In Lebanon. 81. The former Lebanese Foreign Minister, Charles Malik, writing in l?l Hayat of Beirut on 24 January 1972, said: 75. The results of all this help, assistance and co-operation of the successive Governments of Lebanon provided to the terror organizations were not slow to show themselves. On 1 October 1971 El Hawadeth of Beirut writes that the number of terrorists concentrated along the border has reached the figure of 5,000. Continuous contacts between the Government of Lebanon and terrorist leaders are taking place and are being announced over radio stations from Cairo, Damascus and Dera’a. “I doubt whether Israel would be provoking Lebanon but for the provocations from Lebanese territory. If shelling of Israel from Lebanese territory continues, then Lebanon and all of us should expect an Israeli reaction to stop that shelling. I do not think that the policy of Israel is directed towards the carrying out of any aspirations in south Lebanon. If there should be a stop to the attacks from Lebanon against Israel, then Israeli attacks against Lebanon would also cease.” 76. On 14 January 1972 the Lebanese Prime Minister announced that a general understanding had been reached between the Palestine Resistance, as he called it, and the Lebanese authorities. He said this at the conclusion of a meeting on that day between the commander of the Lebanese Army and Yasscr Arafat, Concerning this meeting, H Nahar, Beirut, writes on 15 January 1972 that, after talks concerning the areas in whichfe&Jjeen are being allowed to be present, an agreement has been reached on the roads and passes in use by the fedayeen when they carry out their actions and also in respect of the points from which they are allowed to fire the Katyusha rockets. 82. Unfortunately, however, it is not the voice of reason that prevails in Lebanon but the voice of the terror organizations. Therefore Israel has no choice but to take suitable action so as to try to prevent further attacks and more casualties. Israel has the moral and the legal right to take action in self-defence and to take appropriate steps to make further terror attacks against it not worth while either for the terror organizations or for Lebanon which SO generously extends its patronage to them. 83. Israel’s action was directed exclusively at the terrorists, at their positions and at their bases. The houses that were hit or blown up were, each and all of them, connected with the terror actions, as living quarters, offices, storerooms for arms and ammunition and the like. 77. Al Amvu~ of Beirut wrote on 19 January 1972: “The Jedayeeu have agreed to co-ordinate with the Government of Lebanon their actions before their execu-’ tion against Israel from Lebanese territory.” 84. It is imperative that the Government of Lebanon itself take all the necessary steps to prevent any further acts of terrorism, murder and sabotage. The Government of Lebanon cannot shed its responsibility. It is a sovereign Government and has to shoulder the responsibility for actions against Israel which originate from its soil. 78. The Prime Minister of Lebanon, Mr. Saeb Salam, seems to be satisfied with the arrangements between this Government and the terror organizations. On 20 January 1972 the Middle East News Agency reports him as saying, in a speech on the previous day at a dinner of the Lebanese newsmen’s association: 85. Neither IsraeI nor the international community requires Lebanon to favour Israel’s interests or support Israel’s views. L&anon is obliged, however, as a Member of the United Nations to prevent the use of its territory by “The mutual understanding with our Palestinian brethren is full and definite. The jkdayeerz have the aggression against Israel, it cannot claim them to be shut to Israel’s defence against aggression. If the Lebanese Government forfeits its territory to war, it cannot expect it to be immune from actions taken against war. If the Lebanese Government declares that it is unwilling or unable to suppress crimes against Israel or shows itself indifferent to this problem, it must be ready’for Israel to try to act SO as to protect itself. Israel wishes for peace and quiet; but this does not depend on Israel alone. 86. Mr, MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translation from Russian): The Security Council, which has met today urgently at the request of the representative of Lebanon, has to consider unprecedentedly outrageous actions on the part of the Israeli aggressors. The day before yesterday, on 25 February, Israeli forces, tanks and aircraft invaded the territory of a neighbouring Arab State-Lebanon. Yesterday, on 26 February, Israel committed new acts of invasion against Lebanon. As was correctly pointed out by the distinguished representative of Lebanon, Ambassador Kabbani, in his statement to the Security Council, the invasion of Lebanese territory by Israeli forces was the most serious aggressive and warlike act undertaken by Israel against a neighbouring Arab State over the entire period since its aggression in June 1967. 87. The representative of Israel, speaking yesterday in the Security Council, tried as usual to confuse the Security Council and world public opinion and indulged in extremely crude distortion of the facts and direct deception. He assured the Security Council that the Israeli aggressors are so good and humane that they did not attack populated areas and refrained from armed action against the civilian population. 88. Such assurances were even used by our distinguished colleague, the representative of the United Kingdom, as a basis for stating that, if that was the case, the Security Council’s meeting should be adjourned to allow for consultations. In that way the representative of Israel completely deceived the Security Council, and as a result the Council did not take the necessary action yesterday, and the matter was not brought to a close. 89. In view of the seriousness of the present situation, the Soviet delegation in its statement yesterday proposed that the Security Council should strongly condemn the new aggressive acts on the part of Israel and require an immediate cessation of the aggression, the withdrawal of the aggressor’s forces from Lebanese territory and condemnation of the aggressor. A similar proposal was also made by other delegations. The Soviet delegation also warned that, if Israel repeated the aggressive acts, it would be necessary to consider the expulsion of Israel from the 91. Two more members of the Security CounciI have spoken today, and neither of them has supported the notion of Israel’s alleged right to reprisals. Who gave Israel that right’? Consequently, the overwhelming majority of members of the Security Council, having taken up such a position, have essentially condemned Israel for its new international crimes, its act of large-scale aggression against a neighbouring State, Lebanon, the fourth Arab State it has attacked. One of the five permanent members of the Security Council did not speak yesterday. We are waiting to see what he will say today on this matter. 92. In its insistence that the most effective measures should be taken immediately against the high-handed Israeli aggressors, the Soviet delegation bases its position on the sad lessons of the past, when delay in condemning an aggressor or in taking effective measures to thwart aggression has inevitably harmed the victim of aggression and encouraged the Tel Aviv adventurers to undertake new aggressive onslaughts. Unfortunately, our warning has been confirmed very quickly, within 24 hours. 93. Yesterday, the manoeuvrings of certain delegations behind the scenes prevented us from bringing matters to an end, Today, according to reliable data, the defenders and protectors of the Israeli aggressors are already trying to weaken the Security Council’s just retribution against the aggressors. Those who yesterday were trying, by means of pressure and blackmail, to delay the taking of a decision b> the Council are today trying to weaken it. 94. It is not difficult to see that such an approach, such a position plays into Israel’s hands. It encourages Israel to commit new acts of aggression with impunity. We shotlId not want to be witnesses to a situation where someone on the one hand signed on 26 February or on 27 or 25 February-at all events, during those days-an international document acknowledging the principle of peaceful existence, and on the other hand tried to prevent the adoption of a strong resolution condemning the aggressor and requiring the cessation of the aggression and the immediate withdrawal of forces from the territory of the victim of that aggression. 95. At the same time as the Security Council Was considering the aggressive acts of Israel against a fourth “In Tel Aviv, a military spokesman”-an official-“said the Israeli guns blazed away into Syria three times early Sunday.“* 96. Consequently, Israel not only invaded foreign territory, and is spreading death and destruction on Lebanese territory, but is also firing on the territory of another Arab country. What name shall we give this? Self-defence? The Israeli representatives will never in any circumstances succeed in convincing anyone that this is self-defence. It is blatant international brigandage, international gangsterism, elevated by a small group of Israeli lunatics to become a doctrine of State policy. From that only one conclusion can be drawn: Israel has seized so much foreign territory that it is not in a position to ensure its defence and protection. Nobody can answer for what is happening in Israel’s own territory and in the foreign lands which it has seized. And if you have seized them, and if people are fighting you there, then you deserve it. The best solution is for you to give up the seized territories, withdraw your forces from foreign territory, liberate it, give that territory back to its rightful owners, and the problem will be solved, and your security will be ensured. 9’7. But the IsraeIi aggressors have no such plans or intentions. On the contrary, they have a different kind of plan : with each year they try harder to seize foreign territory. But it is time for the madmen in Tel Aviv to understand that such a policy will come to no good, and that the first to answer for it will be the Israeli people itself. We are dealing here at the moment with new armed aggressive acts by Israel, the scale of which, as many representatives have already noted, exceeds all previous acts of aggression against Lebanon committed since the 1967 war. It is not difficult to see that this intensifies the threat not only to peace in the Middle East but to international peace as a whole, and the Security Council cannot fail to consider this. What we are dealing with, therefore, is a direct challenge by Israel to world opinion, to the United Nations and to the Security Council, the principal United Nations organ responsible for ensuring the maintenance of international peace. 98. The threat to peace in the present situation demands that the Security Council should take the most urgent and decisive measures. The Israeli representative blatantly confused the Security Council by claiming that the Israeli aggression did not constitute a threat to the peaceful population. Today we have heard the statement of the distinguished representative of Lebanon, Ambassador Ghorra, which contained concrete facts. There is also the following information given by news agencies and on the 99. Israel must be told to withdraw its armed forces immediately and completely from Lebanese territory and to cease aI aggressive actions against neighbouring Arab States. The Security Council must also firmly demand that Israel should cease all such aggressive acts in the future 1 Quoted in English by the speaker. 101. The delegation of the Soviet Union favours such strong and effective measures against this violator of peace and aggressor in the Middle East, which is threatening peace not only in that region, but throughout the world. 102. In conclusion, the Soviet delegation believes that the Security Council should give serious thought to implementing the latest resolution [2799 (XXVI]] adopted in December 197 1 during the twenty-sixth session -of the Genera1 Assembly. That resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority of votes, despite the opposition of Israel and its protectors. In that resolution the IJnited Nations and the overwhelming majority in the General Assembly expressed support for the Jarring initiative and his attempts to promote a settlement in the Middle East. Ambassador Jarring has rencwcd his efforts, but he needs assistance. He mentioned this to the members of the Security Council, including myself and, if I am not mistaken, my friend Ambassador Kosciusko-Morizet. He needs help. Once upon a time the permanent members of the Security Council, with the agreement of the Council, gave such help, However, one of the participants in those consultations insisted, in September 19’7 1 , that the date of the next consultative meeting should not be set, and should not be agreed upon. Of course, once that was so, it became possible to oppose the holding of a consultative meeting. And since that time, right up to the present, there have been no consultations between the permanent members of the Security Council on the question of granting help and assistance to Ambassador Jarring in carrying out the lofty and noble mission entrusted to him with the agreement of the overwhelming majority of Members of the United Nations. 103. IJl its Statement yesterday, the Soviet de&$ttion addressed itself to those permanent members whose policy has prevented a resumption of consultations. We remind them of that once again, and wait for their rcplics,

Yesterday’s warning at the Security Council’s meeting that any concessive or 10.5. The Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and against the lives of the people and property in the border areas, and the brutal reprisals in the name of so-called “defence and punishment”, have been repeated for years now. It would be tragic, in fact it would be fraught with the gravest possible consequences, if Israel were to infer from this repetition that the world has reconciled itself to tiles aggressive and reprehensible actions. In no circumstances should the Security Council become XII accomplice ia having Israel’s neighbours become accustomed to reprisals and brutal acts against their territories. 106. Yesterday, the representative of Israel stated-after all the futile attempts to justify these aggressive acts-that the attacks against Lebanese territory had actually ceased and that the Israeli army units had withdrawn to Israeli territory. Those statements have been proved today to be f:dlse and incorrect. 107. The persistence of Israel in continuing with the attacks,, resulting, in addition to everything else, in punishing and destroying the innocent lives of children, only proves the extent to which these actions are deliberate. Therefore, we must ask ourselves: What are the true intentions of Israel? How long will it continue to demonstrate-at the cost of innocent lives of those who arc rhe victims of its aggressive attacks against the territory of a neighbouring country--not only its superiority and arrib gance as an aggressor, but also both its contempt a11d defiance of Security Council decisions and its total dir. regard for the role of the United Nations and of the Council in safeguarding peace and security in the Middle East’? 108. The Yugoslav delegation iS of the Opinion that tlbe Security Council can IN longer remain deaf and tolerate these repeated aggressions but should clearly and tltlequivocally take a stand and condemn Israel, demanding that Israeli troops immediately desist from further attach, not only at present but also in the future, and that Israel withdraw its forces from the territory of Lebanon, with full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.

I am taking the floor very hid:; in ordor to introduce on behalf of tile CD. sponsors--Belgium, France, the United Kingdom and Italy--.a draft resolution contained in document S/IO%, which I believe will be circulated shortly. The co-spo~~ra of this text, as I think appears very clearly from the statements they made yesterday, were already willing tkcn to take the initiative they are taking today. 111. The text we are submitting to the Council is quite clear and hardly needs any explanation. It consists of two short paragraphs which I shall read to my colleagues around the table: 117. That is the moral issue we must face today, and whenever the Security Council or any other forum of the United Nations ignores or deviates from moral issues and tends to confuse them with legal technicalities or political expediencies the problems become more complicated. LTRe Security Council, “Deploring all actions which have resulted in the loss of innocent lives, 118. The facts of the present instance have been amply established. No one will object to Israel taking action within its own territory by sealing its legal borders to the Arab States if necessary, but when it claims the right to take action, and sometimes the most ferocious and cruel action, against Lebanon or any other State in order to maintain its hold on lands which do not by any standards belong to it, it is clearly in the wrong and cannot expect either this Council or any impartial Government not to find it completely at fault. “‘Dmancis that Israel immediately desist and refrain from any ground and air military action against Lebanon and forthwith withdraw all its military forces from Lebanese territory.” 112. The sponsors believe this is the minimum action the Council must take at this stage. We know that this text does not and cannot satisfy all members of the Council, but we are at the same time fully aware of the fact that if we attempted .to do more than what is contained in these simple paragraphs of the draft resolution we would get involved in long discussions delaying further any action, and perhaps we should even find ourselves unable to act. And it is, rather, action-and swift, prompt action-which is required once again of the Council, an action which will stop the military clashes, the loss of life and greater ruin and tragedy for innocent, peaceful people. 119. On the one hand, Israel will not co-operate with the Jarring mission, and on the other, it must decide how to deprive and punish the Arabs without any respect for their rights. This is an intolerable situation, and the Security Council must not only take immediate action on the present complaint of Lebanon but must decide how to give effect to Council resolution 242 (1967). 120. We of the Indian delegation cannot accept that it is ever unworthy to resist the wrong that has been done the Arabs by the Israelis. We should, of course, like all others, prefer to see those wrongs removed by peaceful means. But if Israel will not permit it or co-operate with Ambassador Jarring in achieving it, then Israel must be held fully responsible for all the consequences. 113, In this connexion may I recall what I said yesterday-that while we cannot condone the military raids on Lebanese territory at the same time we camlot fail to deplore any acts of violence from whatever side they may come, and all the more so when they involve the loss of the Iives of innocent civilians, bringing tragedy into peaceful homes. 121. We can only hope that Israel will realize the flltility of the course it is following and will reverse it. If it does not, all the great Powers must immediately exert joint and private efforts to make Israel see reason. And if they too fail, the Council will have no option but to take the strongest possible action, 114. For the reasons I have just indicated the sponsors of this short draft resolution sincerely hope that other members of the Council will refrain from introducing amendments, even minor amendments, so that we may proceed forthwith to the vote, which we trust will be unanimous. 122. We cannot and shoulcl not be partners in perpetuating a wrong. Meanwhile, of course, Israel must desist from all violent acts against Lebanon and must withdraw its forces inside its established border-a border established by the United Nations a long time ago. I15. Mr. SEN (India): The present serious complaint by Lebanon is fully justified, yet it cannot be properly considered except in the context of what has been happening in West Asia. The broad facts are well known, and several speakers have already referred to them. I shall therefore not repeat them but should like to make some general comments and go a little into the basic cause we . have been asked to look into. 123. We believe Israel will be extremely shortsighted to ignore the clear denunciation by the Council on the ground of the imagined or fancied grievance that the Council has should like to think that none of the members of the Council will encourage Israel in this senseless and futile policy, with all its grave consequences to world peace.

I do not want to divert the attention of the Council, but i could not help but notice that Ambassador Malik seemed most anxious to hear what the United States Government had to say. He chastised me for not speaking. I suspect however, that there is a delicate balance between talking far too much and saying nothing at all, so maybe we can both do better. I shall endeavour to speak up, but I shall try not to be repetitive, and I shall try not to conduct a filibuster or give a completely one-sided vjew of very complicated events. 125. Let me start, however, by rejecting irz tuto those unflattering comments about my Government made by our distinguished colleague and my friend Ambassador Malik both yesterday and today. I am unimpressed by those diatribes against the United States Government. Let US all try to be helpful in the solution of this problem before us without resorting to this rcpetitivc, broken record of propaganda. 126. The United States Covcrnment views with deep concern the recurrence of incidents along the Lebanese border and the continuing incursions into Lebanon by Israeli defence forces. Yesterday WL! understood that the military action had ended. We are distressed and very concerned to learn that there have been new incidents along the frontier and even more extensive measures by Israel. We must express deep regret and COIICC~I’~ that Israel has prolonged and intensified its attacks on the territory of Lebanon. We cannot condone such action. As we have repeatedly made clear, the United States fully supports the territorial integrity and political independence of Lebanon, and we therefore believe that the Security Council should call upon the Government of Israel to withdraw its forces immediately from Lebanese territory. 127. The United States deeply regrets the loss of life that has occurred on both sides. We also sympathize fully with Israel’s distress at the loss of life at the hands of guerrilla infiltrators which apparently precipitated this latest row. The continuation of such acts-these terroristjc acts-is not in the interests of any of the people of the area, for it can only delay the achievement of a just and lasting peace which all of US support here in the Security Council and in the United Nations. At the same time, we know that the Government of Lebanon has made strenuaus efforts over past months to maintain quiet along the border. We recognize the difficulty of sealing a border completely, but, unless more effective measures can be taken to do so, a 128. The United States, therefore, urges that both Israel and Lebanon have more frequent recourse to the international facilities that exist for the exchange of information and consultation on border matters. Above all, we ask for an end to cross-border attacks and terrorism, without which the cycle of action and reaction cannot be broken, These events serve to underline the urgency of moving ahead 011 negotiations for a peaceful settlement, for until peace is achieved the failure to satisfy the fundamental and legit& mate concerns of all the people of the area will certainly perpetuate tension. 129. I turn now to the draft resolution before us, In our statement we have expressed our concern over loss of life on both sides. Several others around this tabfe have addressed themselves to the events that Ied to the situation existing today-the cause, one might say. The draft resolution is brief and to the point, but it would better reflect the genuine concern that many of us feel for the loss of life-the loss of innocent civilian lives-if it were changed to include the words “on both sides” after the word “lives”. The preambular pamgraph would then read: “‘Lkploriug all actions which have resulted in the loss of innocent lives on both sides”. It can be maintained that, as now drafted, the sentence does imply that we deplore actions on both sides, but it would be clearer if the Council would accept this one very brief amendment. This amendment is in keeping, as I indicated, with the views expressed here by several coun. tries, and I strongly hope that the Council will accept it. As one of the sponsors, the very able Ambassador of Italy has stated, the present text is not entirely satisfactory to ail members of the Council. For our part, we strongly believe that the thought implied in the preambular paragraph should be made explicit by this amendment adding the words “on both sides”. I am most sympathetic to Ambassador Vinci’s plea but I would ask that the Council consider the addition of those three words, for they seem to us to express more fairly the humanitarian concern that we all feel. Certainly we want to try to be able to support fully the Ambassador’s plea for unanimity on the resolution.

I had intended to explain briefly my delegation’s co-sponsorship of the draft resolution. However, on behalf of my own delegation and on behalf of the other sponsors, I should like to appeal to the representative of the United States not to insist on tabling the amendment which he has just stiggested. I believe that the draft as it stands can command the unanimous support of all 15 members of the Council. That is what I believe the present situation requires, and I therefore join the representative of Italy in appealing strongly to all delegations not to propose amendments, or whatever nature. It may be that some delegations feel that 131. My delegation, for its part, has had no hesitation in co-sponsoring the draft, since it follows closely the line of thought I expressed in my intervention yesterday. And as the representative of Italy made clear when introducing the draft, the preambular paragraph deplores all-1 repeat, ail-activity which causes the loss of innocent life. Therefore I hope that the representative of the United States will agree that his suggested amendment is not necessary.

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

Given the apparent desire of the co-sponsors that there be no amendments at all and the stong appeal by the representative of Italy to that effect, and in view of the statements by the representatives of the United Kingdom and France, we will not press this amendment, in accordance with their wishes.

We were among those who yesterday said that we regretted that the work of the Security Council did not conclude with a resolution. We felt that in any circumstances a resolution was desirable, and, unfortunately, I believe that events have borne us out.

I call on the representative of Lebanon. 133. Today we do have a draft resolution before us, which we have co-sponsored. To be truthful, I must tell the Council that when we agreed to co-sponsor this draft resolution it did not have the preambular part deploring all actions which have resulted in the loss of innocent lives. We do not acttlally believe that this preamble adds very much. To be perfectly frank about it, we think it is somewhat platitudinous. Does the Security Council really need to meet in order to deplore the loss of innocent lives? Of course we all deplore the loss of innocent lives, and if the United Nations did not do so it would be failing in its duty, its most elementary ideal. In any case, what do we call “innocent lives”? Women and children certainly, but, after all, a patriot who fights to defend or liberate his country is also innocent. We consider, therefore, that this preamble does not make this text stronger, but at the same time we do not believe .that this would justify withdrawing our sponsorship and, as the representative of the United Kingdom has emphasized, we hope that no amendment will alter this text, which, quite frankly, seems to us to be a bare minimum. Apart from that, the text does not prejudge the substance of the problem, and, on this point, I should like to recall what we said yesterday-and it is a point that has been taken up by a number of other speakers-that this probIem of the attack on Lebanon cannot be judged outside the general context of the Middle East, and we come back to resolution 242 (1967), to its implementation, to the necessary responsibility of the Security Council and to the need for concerted action and cooperation among the permanent members of the Security Council to see to it that this resolution is finally implemented. That is the substance of the problem.

When I asked for the floor I wished to exercise my right of reply with regard to the statement made by the representative of Israel. I see that the Council is now engaged in the very serious and important business of considering a draft resolution which will terminate the occupation of parts of my country. That is the most overriding element for my delegation at this particular stage. Out of deference to the members of the Council and the business in which they arc now engaged, I shall refrain from saying anything further at this stage.

I call on the repcesentative of Israel.

On 19 August 1948, the then President of the Security Council stated: “ . I . each party”-referring obviously to States-“should be responsible for the actions of the individuals or groups on its territory or under its authority to ensure that their actions do not violate the truce or lead to a situation that would result in resumption of military operations. . . . “ 1 . . the Security Council should adopt a suitable resolution or issue a warning to the parties involved . . . so that the Governments and authorities concerned may establish the necessary supervision over individuals or groups whose actions might contribute to a violation of the truce and a resumption of military operations. . . . “The States which have undertaken to fulfil the Security ‘Council’s decision on the cessation of military operations . . . will certainly be able to find ways and means to punish and call to order or bring to justice the individuals or groups whose actions might contribute to violate the obligations imposed upon the various States involved. . . .“2 134. But for the time being urgent action is needed. Reprisal operations have taken place-and here I should like to say that the outstanding submission by our colleague, the representative of Argentina was enlightening indeed: reprisals must not be confused with the right of legitimate self-defence. The representative of Argentina very cogently 2 See official Records of the Security Council, Third Yeal; 354th meeting, pp, 45 and 46. 144. The representative of the Soviet Union has again tonight-in accordance with his habit, and using language which I as a newcomer to this forum find very strange-accused Israel of aggression and repeated himself over and over again on this point. I believe that, on the basis of the facts and the circumstances with which we are dealing and bearing in mind the record of the Soiriet Union in so far as real aggression is concerned, it ill behoves the representative of that country to wrap himself in the cloak of this holier-than-thou attitude and make the pronouncements that he made tonight. 145. The representative of Yugoslavia has alleged that my statements yesterday about the cessation of action by the Israeli forces were, if I rightly quote him, “false and incorrect”. However, the representative of Lebanon himself has admitted that my statements were correct when made. Subsequent attacks by terrorists on our forces this morning, as I explained tonight, have made it necessary for us to take further action against the terrorist positions. 146. Listening to the representative of India and well remembering the recent debate on the hidi@&iStall question, one can only wonder-,to say nothing more-whether the representative of India really thinks that all those present and the world at large have no memory at all.

We have just read the draft resolution co-sponsored by Belgium, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. We have also heard the explanations given by the co-sponsors. In our opinion, the United Kingdom representative’s explanation of the preambular part of the draft is a complete reversal of the right and wrong and a confusion of aggression and the 149. The Palestinian people’s armed struggle is perfectly just. This is their sacred right, which is in complete conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter. 150. The Israeli representative has said that Israeli inhabitants have suffered sacrifices and losses. The responsibility for this rests squarely with the Israeli Zionists. It is their aggressive atrocities that have compelled the Palestinian and other Arab peoples to take up arms for counter-attack, ‘Isle Israeli representative is in fact propagating a sort of gangster’s logic. 151. The Chinese delegation considers the present draft resolution as highly unsatisfactory. We hold that the Security Council should sternly condemn Israel’s aggressive acts against Lebanon. Therefore, we propose that the preambular paragraph be changed to: “Conclemning Israel’s aggression against Lebanon”. 152. I hope that the sponsor nations can give serious consideration to this amendment in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the prevailing facts. If this is not acceptable to the sponsor nations, 1 propose that the preambular paragraph be completely deleted and only the operative paragraph be retained.

I have a few observations to make in connexion with the remarks addressed to Lhe Soviet delegation by the United States representative, Mr. Bush. He used the well known Anglo-Saxon term “filibuster”, I believe that yesterday there was no filibustering, when statements were made by nine members of the Security Council who did not support the Israeli notion of reprisals and who comdemned Israel for its large-scale aggression against Lebanon. Possibly, from the point of view of the United States representative, that is filibuster ing. From the point of view of justice, of the Charter of tile United Nations and of previous Security Council dedsions, it was the expression of rightful indignation and condemnation of a new act of aggression. 154, Yesterday, adoption of a resolution condernnirlg Israel was prevented not by the statements of those nine members of the Security Council, and not by the fact Ihat this question was discussed, but by the silent fussing behind the scenes which, it must be said openly, is often resorled to in the Security Council. 160. I also expressed the hope that perhaps the Council would also demand that Israel immediately desist from any military action against Lebanon and cease forthwith any incursions by its land, sea or air forces into Lebanese territory. 156. Yesterday’s speech by the Soviet delegation contained the statement that, among the States Members of the United Nations, the only friend, supporter and the protector of Israel is the United States of America. Is that propaganda? The whole world knows it. What sort of propaganda is that ? Who would deny that amongst the Members of the United Nations the United States is the only friend, protector and supporter of Israeli aggression? That is a fact. Where is the propaganda in that? I wish there were more such propaganda in meetings of the Security Council. 161. It is a matter of great regret to my delegation that no action was taken by the Council yesterday, although the circumstances certainly warranted it. Perhaps now I am speaking from hindsight, but had a call gone out from this Council yesterday perhaps Israel might not have continued the armed attacks against Lebanon. It would have taken notice of the fact that the Council was earnest in its determination to see that these attacks stopped. Unfortunately, certain Council members were not disposed towards agreeing upon such a resolution. 157. Today we have not referred to the United States, and in my speech today the words “United States of America” did not occur. But if certain observations which I made were taken by the United States representative to refer to himself, I can do nothing about it. That means the observations were correct. By his amendment of today submitted to the already weak and unsatisfactory draft resolution introduced by the four sponsors, the United States representative has once again shown that in this case, as it has done over a long period of time, the United States delegation is keeping to one and the same line-it is placing on the same footing both the aggressor and the victim of aggression, We cannot agree with that. Even a weak formula of condemnation and regret must refer entirely to the actions of the aggressor, and not those of the victim of aggression. No aggressive crimes by the aggressor should or can be justified, either directly or indirectly. They must be condemned. The Soviet delegation, which introduced yesterday this proposal for condemning the aggressor, today reaffirms it and supports those who favour such a proposal. On this matter there cannot be two points of view. 162. So, what has happened? Many people have lost their lives, hundreds have suffered injury, many homes have been destroyed, a great deal of destruction has been caused to property, and whole village communities have been turned into refugees. 163. The draft resolution [S/10552/ which has just been brought to the attention of my delegation does not meet the demands of the situation. Unfortunately, my delegation was not consulted during its formulation. The draft resolution speaks about ‘Depluri3zg all actions which have resulted in the loss of innocent lives”. I think it is important at this stage that we take into account the situation prevailing in the area. Naturally, one is not happy with the fact that lives have been lost. When we speak of “innocent lives”, whom do we mean? We know that there are now three armed forces involved in the activities that are taking place in the area: the forces of Israel, the forces of Lebanon and the forces of the Palestinian liberation movement. Members of these forces, naturally, by the nature of their duty and their loyalty to their respective countries and flags, are expected to lay down their lives in the defence of their cause. But when we speak of “innocent lives” now, we should speak of innocent civilian lives, and I would ask the four members that have submitted this draft resolution to amend it so as to read: “Deploring all actions which have resulted in the loss of innocent civilian lives.” 158. I should like to make a brief observation with regard to the quotation from my speech at a Security Council meeting more than 20 years ago, to which the Israeli representative referred. The Israeli representative did me a great honour in quoting my utterances of 20 years ago. But he did so in vain. Try as he may, he cannot squeeze from that quotation any justification for the aggressive act committed by Israel against Lebanon. That quotation in no way justifies his country or his Government. The Israeli represeqtative has once again used Himmler’s vocabulary, equating partisans with bandits. Yesterday I said that this was the vocabulary of the German Fascists. Yesterday it was proved where the Israeli aggressors derive their inspiration for aggression against their neighbours, their experience and vocabulary of aggression. They derive that experience from the Hitlerite Fascist aggressors. And today the Israeli representative has reconfirmed that yet again. 164. My delegation would have hoped that it would be possible in the preamble to make reference to a most important principle of the Charter, and to include a paragraph which would read: “Taking note that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”.

Yesterday, during the course of the statement of my delegation, I indicated that the Council should at the first stage tly to arrive at a decision One would have thought that this was a prerequisite to any kind of resolution which involved violations of a country’s “If such activity does not cease, we shall carry on with our operation of incursions into and destruction in Lebanon. You are responsible for each terrorist that stays in Lebanon, and it is not important to us how he operates.” r1643rd meetirlg, para 8J 166. As the representative of France quite rightly stated yesterday, if this information is correct, “what Government worthy of the name could agree to such a demand, which is contrary both to law and to political realities?” [Ibid., para. 191 167. The representative of Israel has stated that the action Israel has taken is purely because of acts of violence committed on its territory, not by Lebanese armed units, not with the assistance of Lebanese armed units, but purely-and they admit this-by members of the Palestinian liberation movement which Israel prefers to call “terrorists”. 168. The Israeli complaint is that a couple were killed as the result of an attack by a bazooka or a mortar. What is the reaction, the retaliation, the reprisal? The representative of Lebanon said yesterday that a battalion of Israeli armed forces composed of 60 tanks and armoured cars entered the region under heavy air force cover. This was on 25 February. Since then these attacks have continued over a wide front, raining death and terror upon the whole civilian population of eastern and southern Lebanon. This Council must learn from its past mistakes and it must not allow situations to drift towards war when with effort and determination it can chart the course towards peace. 169. The very first requirement is that Israel must be asked to respect the territorial integrity of Lebanon. The second is that, as the draft resolution points out, it should be demanded that Israel immediately desist and refrain from any ground and air military action against Lebanon and forthwith withdraw all its military forces from Lebanese territory. In addition Israel must also be warned that the Council will not countenance any further armed incursions into that territory. 170. Of course, such statements have been made in the past, and the whole history of the Israel-Lebanon relationship is replete with violations by Israel of Lebanese territory committed with impunity and with complete indifference to international opinion and to Israel’s obligations under international law and in accordance with the Charter. “We have been told . . . that if action was demanded which could never be implemented it would lead to a weakening of the authority of the Security Council. It is alleged, furthermore, that if such a clause were adopted, the Council would never be able to implement its decision. “The fallacy of that argument is too obvious, It condemns the Security Council to live for ever ia a vicious circle of incapacity which it can never break, It paralyses its authority for ever. + . . Such an argument will continue to be invoked whenever it does not suit the interests of some particular Power.” (1542nd meeting, paras. 83 and 84J 173. My delegation does not call for sanctions at tllis stage. But the imposition of sanctions should not be ruled out as a form of action which this Council should take if Israel continues its violations of the territory of its neighbours.

I wish to say a few words on a diversionary remark made by the representative of Israel. Some invocation has been made to my memory, which is, or at least should be, both detailed and vivid on any matters of immediate and grave concern to my country. However, we do not have to depend on memory on important political problems. Rather, we consult records and documents before, during and after the occurrence of these problems. 175. I wonder if the innuendo we heard a few minutes ago will bring any comfort even to those in the subcontinenl who might once have disagreed with us.

I call on the representative of Israel.

Just to get a matter of semantics right for the representative of the Soviet Union, the expression I used for members of the Arab terror organizations was “terrorists”. Whatever word was used in the Russian interpretation, I am sure the representative of the Soviet Union would have made use of much stronger language in the same circumstances.

I have already expressed the opinion of the Yugoslav delegation. We now have before us a draft resolution sponsored by four delegations. Allow me to make just a few comments on this draft, 187. Taking into account previous Security Council reso. fliliom% Our basic premise must be that the aggressor must 1)nCe again be condemned, and that the resolution should contain the demands which were included in the operative part of the above-mentioned draft. 1~~~ The PRESIDENT: Do tfle members of the Councit agree that we should suspend the meeting for 10 minutes? tflL). l calf on the representative of Lebanon.

I should like to make a short remark before the suspension of the meeting. In our Statements both yesterday and today we have emihasized vcrY cleartY that what is most important for us at this stage is 10 libcratc uur oceupicd territories from the invaders, from the aggressors. We have catlcd on the Security Council to take immediate action to that effect. 181. I should like to appeal 10 the sponsnkrs trl’ this draft resolution to consider my auggcstirm that the t~rearnhultir paragraph be delctcd. 191 I As regards the draft resolution before the Council now, we leave it to the wisdom of the Council to decide what it wisflcs to do. Our main concern is with the operative paragrapfl at this particular stage. The draft resolution falls far short of our demands. Our demands were very clear yesterday and they are very clear today, and by adopting this draft resolution the Council will not give us full satisfaction. At this stage we are mainly concerned wit}1 the invasion of our territory, the termination of that invasion, the relieving of the anxiety of the people of the area, the stopping of the exodus of the civilian population whicfl is fleeing from the area and the stopping of the murder and destruction. I hope that we shatf have ilJ1 epportunfty at a later stage to discuss with the Council further aspects of this problem, because our requests were very clear yesterday and they are very clear today. We shall not bc satisfied with this resolution alonc. 182. Mr, KOSCIUSKO-MOIlI%f~“I” ( Frarl~~c 1 Chrtr~~~~r~trtritrtr fiolfz /+e~rc/z): A number of prt,prrsafs and rcyucsts have been put forward by our cttltcagucs around tflis table. I think it might be a good thing ii the sI~ms(irs c&d get together very briefly -perhaps for only tcrt mintltcs to consider how best to meet tfrr varirrus pra,ptlsds tflat have been made. 183, I suggest, then, that lh CKruxlcil suspclld its meeting for perhaps no longer than ten minutes.

tt’~~ufcl the members rrf’ the Council agree to the su~~cstion put fi,rw;rrd by tfic representative of France that WC sf~uutd ndjrrurn for a period of 10 minutes and resume our meeting after the sponsors have had a chance tr) ca~sidcr dtc sumcstirrnr that have been made‘?

I did not intend to speak, but, since the representative of Lebanon has made this statement, I think it should be clear to at1 members of the Caurtcit what has been requested by him; indeed it was on tf)at basis ttlat we insisted as co.sponsors that the Council 185, Mr. MALlK (Union of’ Sl)vict Srlciatist Republics) h~sl~fion ./iwz Russian]: I had wisf\ctl 10 ask I;rr the floor before the I’rencfl reprcscntetivc murfe fris proposal but, since he has now made it, I shalt refl’f II) that prr>pos:lf. t&c prompt action. Several views have been expressed, and we expected that; indeed WC said in introducing Our text that we knew tflat the text would not be mtwletelY atjsfactory to several defegations. However, we thought that at this stage what was needed was to take action- [ consider that it wouitl bc appropriate tK3 take :I StlK,M break% but. before that break I slmld like ta) remind flembers of ttlc Security c’ntmcfl tftat in its resolution 88 (196% dated 24 March I OOX, tflc c‘c.~~mcil tcttrk a iecfsfoll in conncxion with Israel’s attack tin Jordan, in I7 193. Now, in an effort to enable the Council to act unanimously, the representative of the United States, who had put forward an amendment, has shown a spirit of conciliation and the desire to enable the Council to act as one man and united, by withdrawing his amendment. 194. We have the greatest respect for the Chinese representative and the greatest consideration for the views he has expressed in requesting the deletion of the preambular paragraph of the draft resolution-the same respect and consideration as we have for the representative of Yugoslavia, Mr. Mojsov. The representative of Somalia, with his usual knowledge and skill, has also expressed some views and put forward some suggestions. I should like to explain to all these representatives that what we have tried to do is use language which is open also to interpretation. I think this is our usual practice-that is, to USC words that can be interpreted. I have cot heard from any of my colleagues who have spoken that they have any quarrel with the words “loss of innocent lives”. Mr. Farah has suggested the wording ‘“civilian lives”, but we have heard different views. Even one of the co-sponsors explained that “innocent lives” can be interpreted in different ways. Why should we become involved in these semantics when we are requested--as again a few minutes ago we were requested-to take action at once? 195. It is an interim resolution. We want to see what the result will be. We want to see the consequences. So let us act and not try to display merits. We do no claim any special merits. We only want to enable the Council to act, to take a decision. We have already said that we should have liked to see this action taken yesterday. Let us not delay any longer. Let us take this decision today, at once, without waiting any longer. We shall continue to have this subject under consideration. We have had it for so many years and we shall still have to deal with this subject and other subjects relating to the Middle East. So my final appeal to all delegations would be to enable the Council to take action and to adopt this draft resolution unanimously. It is open to each delegation to give its explanation of vote and to reiterate the views it has expressed previously or at this meeting.

Yesterday and today the Chinese delegation has clearly stated its views. As an interim draft, the resolution can be very simple and concise. However, the preambular paragraph of the draft resolution in its present form cannot but give the impression of partiality towards the Israeli Zionists. Therefore, in order to enable the Security Council to proceed with actions, we have just proposed two alternatives: first, to condemn Israeli aggression against Lebanon. If this is not acceptable, then we propose that the preambular paragraph be deleted completely. III so doing, We can avoid delay and immediately proceed to actions. And this is precisely what the Lebanese representative has asked the Security Council to do. We are not engaged in 198. Secondly, I see that there is a United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Lebanon. I was wondering whether a report has been received by the Secretary. General on the military activities that have taken place in Lebanon over the past three days.

In regard to the remarks that have just been made, I think that we are all keenly aware of the need for quick action, but I also consider that a short suspension, of 10 minutes, would not delay the Council unduly.

In view of the statement we have just heard from the representative of Lebanon, and taking into account the wishes which a number of delegations have expressed that the sponsors should agree to delete the preamble, perhaps we do not need to suspend our meeting, since the problem we are discussing is an urgent one and since it is essential for the Security Council to take a correspondingly urgent decision. If the sponsors have a serious approach to the question under discussion, if they really wish to provide assistance to the victim of aggression, then the most sensible thing for them to do would be to withdraw the preamble and to put the operative part to a vote; obviously, all members of the Security Council would vote in favour. In that case, a suspension would not be required.

I shall then ask the sponsors whether they are prepared to delete the preamble. If they are, there would be no need for a suspension. If they are not, then we shall have a lo-minute suspension to consider what to do.

I believe that after all the sponsors need to meet, if only for a few minutes, to consult with each other. I think that the recess would be a very short one and matters might be considerably simplified. I also think that my proposal for a suspension had priority, and that we should have decided on it at once. However, I do not insis!, we have had some clarifications which might facilitate a solution, but I would maintain my proposal for a suspension, which I repeat, will be very brief.

I regret that the discussion has bagged on. I now put it to the Coun~jl that with its agreement we should suspend the meeting for 10 minutes. 205, The PRESIDENT: Before we proceed to the consideration of the draft resolution before us I should like, with the indulgence of the members of the Council, to make a short statement as the representative of the SUDAN. 211. The action that Israel has engaged in during the last two days is again in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and should be just as vehemently condemned as the last action. The Security Council must indeed be decisive against Israel if it is to maintain any respect or authority. The Charter of the United Nations provides for such action against transgressors. Members of the Council might consider that the time has come for the international comma nity to take punitive action against Israel. 206, Members of the Council have often had occasion to witness the representatives of Israel decrying the use of violence, or what they consider incitement to violence, against Israeli territory or Israeli citizens on the part of the Arab people of Palestine. They have often deplored the fact that the neighbouring Arab countries have continued to give refuge to the Palestinian fedayeen and maintained that the Governments of those countries are to be held responsible for acts undertaken by the fedayeen. We heard this today and yesterday from the representative of Israel. Because of this, they have sought to justify before the Council their punitive action against the countries that have given refuge to the fedayeen. 212. Speaking as the representative of the Sudan, I would say that the draft resolution introduced by the representative of Italy on behalf of the four sponsors falls far short of the action that the Council is duty bound to undertake. Israel has been condemned in countless resolutions of the Council and asked to desist from its wilful and self-seeking ways. It has not been deterred. The adoption of this draft by the Council, even if it were unanimous, would not change the Israeli attitude. The need for more decisive and drastic action still remains. 207. They have done this in spite of the fact that their action has been repeatedly rejected and repudiated by the Council. It is an indisputable fact, however, that as a result of its so-called preventive and punitive action Israel is now in occupation of an area that is far in excess of the territory assigned to it by the original United Nations resolution on the partition of Palestine [Gei?eral Assembly resolution 181 (II)]* 213. Speaking as PRESIDENT, I understand that the representative of Italy has a statement to make on the draft resolution before the Council.

I have asked to be allowed to speak in order to inform the Council of the results of the consultations which took place between the sponsors during the short break that was requested by the rcpresentative of France on their behalf. 208. The representatives of Israel have deplored the fact that Arab States did not accord to it the respect for its security and territorial integrity that is due to it as a Member of the United Nations. Yet the Government of Israel does not seem to consider itself bound by the principles and precepts that it would have all other States follow without deviation. One might ask: What is the territory of Israel that the Arab countries have to respect? Does it include Jerusalem? Does it include Gaza? Does it include Sinai? These are areas that Israel occupies in violation of all the principles that its representatives are so importunate about observing. These areas are now claimed by Israel as part of its territory, and being part of its territory are therefore inviolate. 215. I should like first of all to assure the members of the Council that the four sponsors have considered very carefully and seriously the suggestions which have been submitted to them by the representatives of China, Yugoslavia and, if I am not mistaken, Somalia, 216. We have come to the conclusion that in order to be consistent with the position that we had taken when we made an appeal to all members not to put forward amendments it would be difficult for us to accede to a request to delete the preambular paragraph of the draft resolution. Nevertheless, we believe that we can give full satisfaction to the suggestion which was put to US by having the two paragraphs put to separate votes. This, I think, would satisfy the request which was put to US, and through the consultations we had I think we can draw that conclusion. 209. The Palestinians do not accept this logic. They do not accept it since their claim to the land that Israel now occupies is undeniable. Indeed, the United Nations has repeatedly asserted the right of the Palestinians to their lands; but the United Nations has been unable to enforce its resolutions because Israel has continued to deny every right to the people of Palestine. 210. Now Israel is holding Lebanon responsible for the action of a people that is asserting its rights to its homeland. Israel claims that the punitive action undertaken in Lebanon was undertaken in self-defence. But such actions by Israel have always been unequal and disproportionate. They have always been condemned by the inter national community. Members of the Council would recall 217. Finally, my suggestion would be that you, Mr. President, take separate votes on the two paragraphs of the draft resolution: first a vote on the preambular paragraph, and second a vote on the operative paragraph.

I believe that suggestion is acceptable to the Council. I shall therefore put to the vote a . . 221. Defending the activities of the terrorists against Israel from the soil of another Member State of the United Nations . . .

I call upon the representative of the Soviet Union on a point of order.

Mr. President, when the Council is proceeding to a vote, statements are not permitted+ Why is that privilege being granted to the Israeli representative?

I asked for the floor before anything was put to the vote.

Since I did not quite grasp the interpretation, may I ask the representative of the Soviet Union to repeat his remarks?

If I understood you correctly, you stated that you were putting the draft resolution to a vote after the statement of the representative of Italy. Consequently, the Council was proceeding to a vote. In accordance with the provisional rules of procedure, when the Council is proceeding to a vote on a draft resolution, no debate is permissible.

I think we can consider that, while I was on the point of starting the voting procedure, the representative of Israel asked for the floor before the voting procedure actually started. Consequently, I call upon the representative of Israel to resume his statement. 22%. Mr. DORON (Israel): Defending, as you did, Sir, the activities of the terrorists against Israel from the soil of another Member State of the United Nations, you carried your remarks into the realm of extreme partisanship. They are most elnphatically rejected by my delegation.

I think I do not need to defend the statement I made as representative of the Sudan because it was not in my estimation a partisan statement. It took account of the facts as I saw them, and it took account of the pronouncements of the United Nations on the Palestinians and their rights as acknowledged by the United Nations. 230. If we may revert to consideration of the draft resolution before us /S/10552], the Council will now proceed to vote. Separate votes on the preambular and operative paragraphs have been requested. 231. I shall first put to the vote the preambular paragraph. Against: China, Guinea, Sudan, Yugoslavia. Abstaining: India, Somalia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The result of the vote was 8 in favour and 4 against, rvith 3 abstentions. The preambular paragraph was not adopted, having fail& to obtain the affirmative votes of nine members.

I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution as modified by the vote on the preambular paragraph, which was not carried. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Argentina, Belgium, China, France, Guinea, India, Italy, Japan, Panama, Somalia, Suda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia. The draft resolution, as modified, was adopted.3

I shall now call upon representatives who wish to speak in explanation of their votes after the vote.

I shall try to be very brief; the hour is late. We find it incomprehensible that people around this table could have failed to support the inclusion in the resolution of a statement which read: “Deploring all actions which have resulted in the loss of innocent lives”. How this Council could object to such fair and humane language leaves us completely baffled. 23.5. Yes, we voted in favour of the draft resolution without the preambular paragraph, for, as we said in our statement, the Security Council should call upon the Government of Israel to withdraw its forces immediately from Lebanese territory. That the Council has done. But it is our strongly held view that the Council even at this stage knows enough and should have cared enough to deplore, among other things, the actions which resulted in the loss of innocent lives. 236. We shall in the future carefully note those who raise this question in other incidents. 237. Let me be clear. Our vote on the final passage of the resolution was in no way a condonation of the events that led up to the actions taken by the Government of Israel. ‘238. Mr. ORTIZ DE ROZAS (Argentina) (interpretatiun from Spanish): My delegation voted in favour of the preambular paragraph for two reasons. First, my delegation had no alternative on language which deplored the loss of innocent lives. Secondly, the preambular paragraph was 3 See resolution 313 (1972). 245. In connexion with the adoption of that resolution, I would like to point out one more fact. The representative of Italy, who introduced the draft resolution on behalf of the four sponsors, explained that he regarded the resolution as a provisional one, in view of the urgency of the question and the need for the Security Council to take urgent measures. In view of that statement by the sponsors, and taking into account the general mood of all but one of the representatives in the Council who have set out their position, I believe that it would be advisable to continue discussion of this question in order to take into account the statements of delegations with regard to the adoption by the Security Council of more serious and strict measures against Israel. The USSR delegation has set out those measures in its statements. They include condemnation of Israel and implementation of sanctions against it in accordance with the relevant Articles and provisions of the Charter, and also consideration of the application of an extreme measure to Israel-as a violator of the Charter and of Security Council decisions-consideration of the question of Israel’s remaining in the United Nations, as well as a number of other questions. For that reason, the Soviet Union delegation formally proposes that consideration of this question should be continued after adoption of the resolution. 240. Therefore, in casting our affirmative vote, we in no way interpret it as meaning that we put both forms of action on an equal footing.

My delegation voted in favour of the preambular paragraph since it believes that it is very deplorable that, as a result of excessive acts of so-called self-defqnce by Israel, loss of life occurred and, in particular, the l$s of children’s lives. 242. My delegation voted in favour of the resolution as a whole, for two main reasons. Firstly, my delegation wished to respond to the appeal made by the representative of Lebanon that the occupied part of the territory of Lebanon should be liberated as soon as possible. Secondly, my delegation took note of the explanation given by the representative of Italy that this resolution is intended to be an interim measure.

No one rejoices over the loss of life, and my delegation indicated that, had this preambular paragraph been qualified by the inclusion of the term “‘civilian”, it would have had no difficulty in accepting it as it stood. Unfortunately, the sponsors seemed in a particular hurry to get through with the paragraph and to disregard the suggestions which were made for its deletion. The paragraph as it stood was ambiguous, having regard to the circumstances which exist, and it did not address itself specifically to the central question before us, which is the murderous attacks by land and aerial bombardment against the civilian population of Lebanon. It is my hope that when we resume consideration of the complaint by Lebanon we shall have an opportunity to give further consideration to a paragraph which would concentrate perhaps on expressing our regret at the loss of innocent civilian lives and also at the wanton destruction that is being inflicted upon the people of Lebanon by foreign armed forces. 243. As I recall, the Security Council has adopted a number of resolutions with respect to the question between Lebanon and Israel, and the Council had issued a similar request, or appeal, or demand, a number of times. But we are still facing a recurrence of the unhappy incidents in the border area between Lebanon and Israel. As some representatives mentioned before, the lack of a report from UNTSO seems to handicap the Council when it wishes to act effectively, because of lack of correct information. Therefore my delegation would have hoped that any resolution adopted by the Council would have some provision for some’ concrete peace observation machinery. However, in view of the appeal by the representative of Lebanon and in view of the urgency of the situation, my delegation has agreed to the present resolution. I feel that the sponsors of this resolution submitted it in the conviction, or at least in the strong hope, that it would, if adopted, be fully respected by the parties concerned and in particular by Israel. 1 strongly hope that this resolution will be fully respected by Israel and that Israel will not violate it on the grounds of self-defence. 247. Mr. TOURE (Guinea) (interpretation from French).’ We are very grateful to the sponsors, who have enabled us to have a separate vote on the preamble and the operative part of the resolution. We should not like there to be any ambiguity about our position in the Council. We would have supported the resolution as submitted by the sponsors if the preambular paragraph had not been worded so equivocally. My delegation in no way wishes to have the victims placed on the same footing as the aggressors, so as to be able to feel satisfaction later with an easy conscience, with a job well done. While demonstrating our solidarity

During discussion of this urgent question, the delegation of the Soviet Union has firmly spoken out against the adoption of an identical attitude towards Israel and Lebanon, the aggressor and the victim of aggression. For that reason, during consultations we firmly

I call on the representative of Lebanon.

Mr. President, I wish to thank you personally for the able and objective manner in which you have conducted this meeting, I also wish to express the thanks of my delegation and my Government to the sponsors of the draft resolution which has been adopted by the Council. I also wish to express my thanks to all the members of the Council for their unanimous vote as well as for the statements made in the Council which expressed deep feelings of sympathy, support and friendship for and solidarity with my country and my people. 251. I do not wish to indulge in rhetoric at this hour in rebutting the statement made by the representative of Israel earlier in this debate. However, I should like to make a few points for the sake of the record. 252. He may have misunderstood me when I said that at the very moment when he made his statement here in the Council, Israeli soldiers were perhaps technically not on Lebanese soil. But the facts, as I said, were that Israeli forces were still opening roads in southern Lebanon and Israeli pliines were flying over the air space of my country. The Israeli representative claimed that after the withdrawal of the Israeli troops some mortar fire took place from somewhere on the slopes of Mount Herman against the soldiers retreating from Lebanon. I am wondering what Al-Nabatiya, far to the south-west of that area, had to do with such mortar fire-if mortar fire did indeed take place. I wonder what a Palestinian refugee camp had to do with such actions in which women, children and other innocent people were murdered and wounded, 253. He went on to quote from the Lebanese press. We pride ourselves 011 having a free press where all the facts and all the opinions are given. We do not have to make any excuses for that; indeed we are very proud af it. But if he needs more quotations, I can give him tons of Lebanese papers to quote from. 256. This is the sanctuary Lebanon has made of itself for our brethren, the Palestinian people. Lebanon is not Israel-an aggressor, an occupier-where over 1.5 million of our Arab brethren are suffering under Israeli military occupation. 257. I am not going to cite the dozens of resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly condemning Israel for its many aggressions and acts of violence and wars against the Arab States, against the Palestinian people and against my country. 258. The record is very heavy and the hour is very late, and I am not going to recite all these things. May I be permitted only to make one final remark. On 19 May 1970, in its resolution 280 (1970), and on 5 September 1970, in its resolution 285 (1970), the Security Council adopted resolutions similar to the one that has just been adopted. What did Israel do with these resolutions? Exactly what it has done to the scores of other resolutions adopted by the United Nations. Our hope is not only that the resolution just adopted will be respected but also that it will bs enforced by the Security Council if it is not respected by Israel. 259. We understood from the various representatives around this table that this was a provisional, an interim resolution, adopted upon our request, to deal with an urgent emergency matter. We thank you for that action. But we cannot stop here. The past is very clear. We know the record of Israel and, as we heard from some members of the Council, we will have, I hope soon, opportunities to go deeper into this matter in order to satisfy the demands, the requests, that the Lebanese delegation has put before the Council.

I now call on the representative of Israel. 261. Mr. DORON [Israel): I have asked for the floor to express the deep regret of my delegation that the resolution just adopted by the Security Council fails again to make mention of the root cause of the situation discussed in the last two meetings here: namely, the failure of the Government of Lebanon to take any action against the terrorist organizations established on its soil, with a view to putting a stop to their activities against Israel, activities which are nothing but criminal, murderous acts that cannot be glorified or exalted by any other name. 263. It is a matter of sorrow for my delegation that the preambular paragraph, perfunctory as it was, has been deleted for procedural reasons, although an absolute major- The meeting rose on Monday, 28 February 1972, at 1.00 a.m. 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 Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences ddpositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous aupr& de votre libraire ou adressez-vous A : Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou Geneve. KAlC IIOJIS’INTb EI3j4AHHJI OPrAHN 3A4MH OB%EjQiHEHHbIX HAIWFL Maflaew Opraaasasua Ob~e~waennbrx HasuB MOXHO fcynn~b B KHAXHLIX MarasHH&x a aretrrc~~ax BO acex pafioaax ~npa. HaBOAKTe cnpanrtn 06 FiJAaHWRx s BEU.I.IWd KHIIIICHOM MEWX3HWe RII$ TlUIUUTe IlO tLJQ,eCy : Opraaazaqua OB-be&wrremrbrx HaswCi, CeKqrra no nponaHte usAaauR, HLM-HOPK A~U Xenesa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estin en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, SeccMn de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York price: $U.S. 1.50 (or equivalent in other currencies) 72-82101-November 1975-1.W