S/PV.1648 Security Council

This meeting of the Security Council has been convened upon short notice, after consultations with the members of the Council, in accordance with the requests received this afternoon by the President of the Security Council from the representatives of Lebanon and Israel. As is indicated in the agenda before the Council, the letter from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon has been circulated in document S/10715, and the letter from the Permanent Representative of Israel in document S/10716. 2, The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 23 June 1972 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Co~rkl (S/ 10715). 3. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 23 June 1972 from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10716). 5. Having in mind the grave situation in the area and the concern about it which was expressed during the recent informal consultations among the members of the Security Council, I would hope for a short and to-the-point debate in the Council which will enable the Council to take appropriate action. The meeting u.m called to order at 8.35 pm. Adoption of the agenda The agenda ws adopted. 6. The first representative whose name is inscribed on my list to speak at this meeting is the representative of Lebanon, on whom I now call. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 23 June 1972 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10715) 7. Mr, GHORRA (Lebanon): Mr. President, allow me to express to you on my behalf and on behalf of the Lebanese delegation our satisfaction at seeing you presiding over this august body. We are well aware of your outstanding qualities as a fime diplomat, your rich experience and your wisdom, We are confident that under your leadership the Security Council will be able to achieve meaningful service to the cause of peace. The situation in the Middle East: Letter dated 23 June 1972 from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10716)

At the same time as he submitted a request for an urgent meeting of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed another letter to the President of the Security Council in which he asked to be allowed to participate, without vote, in the Council’s discussion. 8. I also wish to thank you for convening the Council tonight and thank the members of the Council for responding to your call. Though I am the representative of a victim country, I feel indeed a certain sense of guilt for the inconvenience we are causing you and our esteemed Secretary-General as well as the other members of the Council by asking for this urgent meeting at this time. However, that is the only sense of guilt we feel, because the serious and heavy guilt is to be borne by those who have constantly disrupted peace and security in the Middle East 2. A letter has also been received from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations, in which he asked to be allowed to participate, without vote, in the Council’s discussion. 9. I am not surprised to note on the agenda an item entitled “Letter from the Permanent Representative of Israel”. I am surprised to see that it is inscribed there on the same footing as my letter, though chronologically it follows my letter. The Israelis’ tactics are known to all of us. Had the Israelis had a valid case, had they been respectful of the United Nations and the Council and had they been of good faith, they could very easily have brought their complaint before the Council at any time. The doors of this Council are open to every plaintiff State that has valid and legitimate grievances. Lebanon has had in the past and has now serious grievances, and that is why we come to you, seeking justice. Every time we have to resort to the Council, we are followed immediately by Israel. I have had occasion before to expose this Johnny-come-lately tactic. Johnny does not seem willing to change his practices. Johnny wants to use the Council, as he always has done, only as a platform for Israel’s propaganda against Lebanon and the Arab States. 10. Let us now look at the past record and at the new facts which brought us here tonight. 11. As for the past record, the Council will recall the dastardly Israeli attack on Beirut international airport on 28 December 1968 and the destruction of 13 Lebanese civil jetliners and other aircraft. 12. In my letter to you, Mr. President, dated 12 June 1972 [s/10695], I have related the various acts of aggression carried out by Israel against Lebanon since the attack on the Beirut airport in 1968. Allow me to repeat them briefly at this stage: (a) Israeli air forces violated Lebanese air space 186 times; (b) Israeli naval units violated Lebanese territorial waters 26 times; (c) Israeli armed forces bombarded Lebanese territory 183 times; (d) Israeli forces raided Lebanese villages 38 times; (e) Israeli armed forces crossed the border of Lebanon 54 times; (f) Israeli armed forces blew up 163 dwellings and damaged 187 in several villages in southern Lebanon and (g) Israeli armed forces killed 42 civilians and 4 military personnel and wounded 128 civilians and 16 military personnel, while kidnapping 45 civilians and 11 military personnel. 13. To that heavy list of murderous Israeli acts and violations of our sovereignty I wish now to add the following new facts. 14. On 21 June 1972, at 9.50 a.m., an Israeli patrol entered into Lebanese territory one kilometre from Marouahine in the central southern region. The patrol was composed of two jeeps supported by an armoured patrol. Lebanese vehicles were destroyed at Maiouahine. 16. At the same time, another armoured Israeli unit surrounded a gendarmerie post in the village of Ram&ah, Three gendarmes were kidnapped; two civilians ‘were wounded. 17. Between 12.30 p.m. and 2.00 p.m., the Israeli Air Force bombarded Hasbayya and surrounding villages, particularly Zaghla and Ayn Qiuia. Bombs were dropped in the town of Hasbayya. As a result of the bombing, nine persons, including two women in Hasbayya, and another one in Mimes, were killed. Seventeen persons, including two women, were injured. Four hourses were destroyed and 20 damaged. A large section of a Lebanese military barracks was set on fire. A bridge between Mimes and Hasbayya and several civilian cars were destroyed and electric and telephone services disrupted. 18. At 12.40 p.m. five Israeli half-tracks entered the Lebanese village of Ma&at al Btayshiyeh located in the vicinity of Alma al Chaab. Israeli soldiers opened fire on a Lebanese military post in the village of Marouahine. 19. At 3.30 p.m. Israeli artillery shelled the hills located west of Chabba in South Eastern Lebanon. 20. At 4.10 p.m. Israeli artillery shelled a Lebanese army post situated on the road to Cbabaa. 21. A new series of acts of aggression has taken place today, 23 June: (a) at midnight of 22/23 June, Israeli armedforces fired mortar shells on the bridge of Abcu Zabla near al-Majdiyyeh; (b) at 4.00 a.m., Israeli armed forces fired mortar shells on the Marjayoun-al-Majdiyyeh road; (c) at 5.00 a.m., Israeli artillery shelled the village of 22, Those are the details Of the W%-’ facts- 30. The Israeli aggression of the last three days was forecast by and expected in many quarters. It has been generally held that Israel would seize on the flimsiest Pretext to justify its aggression. The Security Council and the international community have grown accustomed to such Israeli practices. Let me refer to a dispatch, contained in the h’ashington Post of 22 June 1972, characterizing the new pattern Israel is following in its aggression: 23, The representative of Iersel, iF1 his letter Of 20 June 1972 (s(li7706/ to the President of the ~Sccurity Council, clahed fiat “a bazooka shell WBS fired from Lebanese tenitcry cn a civilian bus travelling in the Hemmn BFZB”, and that “Later two Israeli soldiers WMC wounded by the exPlcsicn of a mine planted in the same area bY terror agents from Lebanon”* “Observers here”-that is, in Israel-“see the Israeli action of today as the most significant military operation against Lebanon since the raid on Beirut airport in December 1968, when a dozen civilian aircraft were destroyed by Israeli commandos. 24, Pcll&ng the abovementiorred acts of sg$ression eom&ted by Israeli military forces against Lebanon, an lsrselimilitary spokesman stated: “P&wing terrorist activity from Inbanese territory against Israeli civilian transportation and the Israeli defence forces in the Iast few days, Israeli forces haw taken action on several traffic axes along the Lebanese border,” ‘Yhe observers point out that all other raids of Israelis against Lebanon in retaliation for Palestinian guerrilla activities against the Israelis from Lebanese bases were of a local nature. The action today was not local in nature and the Israeli communique pointed out that the Israeli troops did not enter any Lebanese villages,” 25. An official Israeli broadcast at 1530 on 21 June 1972 alleged that the Syrian officers were captured while they were engaged in hostile acts against Israel. In connexion with these allegations, I wish to state that: (a) it has been established that the two incidents complained of by Israel twk place two kilometres beyond the advanced lsreeli military posts, well within the occupied Golan heights; (b) a bazooka shell has a range of approximately 150 metres and therefore could not have been fired from Lebanese tenitory; (c) the Lebanese uuthorities categorically deny that any infitration took place in the arca from Labanase terntory; id) the Lebanese Covcrnmcnt strongly affirms that no shelling whatsoever was carried out from Lebanon aad no element crossed the tibanesa border to lay mines in the wcupied Golan heights and (LI) the Syrian dfk~~~ won: en a friendly visit, travelling in non-military cars on an open read in the vicinity of the Lebanerec border, wltich road Parallels in open areas another road which runs across the border in Israel. 3 1. A dispatch to The New York Times from Tel Aviv on 21 June stated that an Israeli staff officer had said that the capture of the Syrian officers was a surprise. A dispatch by the Associated Press reported the same thing the same day. What does this mean, in,fact? It means that the objective of Israel was to ambush a Lebanese military convoy. 32. The facts I have related to the Council point to a new pattern in the Israeli acts of aggression-directing their attacks ah&t Lebanese military personnel and ins&llations. This has been followed in conjunction with the habitual, murderous and merciless Israeli pattern of shelling and raiding open towns and villages, killing innocent civilians, including women and children, destroying houses and farms and spreading panic and terror among a peaceful population, 33. The Council may recall that, on S September 1970 and 25 February 1972, we brought two complaints before the Council against massive, large-scale attacks by Israel against Lebanon. On both occasions the Council adopted resolutions (285 (1970), 313 (1972/j calling on Israel to withdraw its military forces immediately from alI Lebanese territory. The council has not pursued its deliberations on those two CUCS, and has stopped short of taking decisive action against the aggressor. In the meantime Lebanon has shown the Council, the United Nations and the world at large ita good faith in doing everything in its Power to promote conditions of peace in the area. That is why we resorted to a&lng the Council to strengthen the United Nations ma&&try under the Armistice Agreement by I *& Consequenk no responsibility whatsoever could be @uted to Manon in relation to the abuvc-mentioned iacidents. Has it been ascertained that the incidentrs were not Of the making of Israel? Which neutral snd impartial Obs~~ation team has investigated them? 27* Neimer the incidents, even if truly represented by 1srae1-and what amount of credibility can we really attach to *e Israel assertion? --nor the pre%nN of the Syrian am~ offiCem on our soil could be cowtrued as valid justification for launching against Lebanon the deliberate and wantOn acts of aggression of great msgnitudc resulting in heaQ’ loss of life and material destruction, 35. In the.face of that act of good faith by Lebanon, what has happened? Israel has refused to co-operate with the Council, has refused to allow United Nations observers to operate on its territory. Since then, the observers have been sending their reports to the Secretary-General, who has been submitting them as supplemental information to the Council, Those reports do not contain a single Israeli complaint. If one scans all of them one will not find a single Israeli complaint against Lebanon. Had Israel any reason to complain concerning any action on our border, all it had to do was to report it either to the Secretary-General or to the Security Council directly. Nor do the reports contain references to any activity undertaken from Lebanese territory or on Lebanese borders. The United Nations observers have not once come up with a fact showing that anything has been undertaken from Lebanese territory. On the contrary, the reports, beginning with document S/793O/Add.1584 of 26 April 1972 and ending with document S/7930/Add.1643 of 22 June 1972, contain ample evidence of consistent violations by Israel of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity. 36. Our authorities have made scores of complaints to the United Nations military observers of UNTSO (United Nations Truce Supervision Organization). The reports of those observers contain information about their direct observations and confirmation of our many complaints. 37. That others were not confirmed was due to the fact that the violations occurred outside the observation range of UN’TSO observers. The observers indirectly confirmed some others by references to certain activities at the times stated in our complaints: references such as “identity of jet planes not confirmed”; “jet sounds heard in such an area, at such a time”-the time reported by us; “warships observed, but because of poor visibility their identity was not confiied”. The non-confirmation of other reports of violations, because they fell outside the observation range of the observers, does not detract from their truthfulness. 38. It would be tedious to repeat all the information about the direct observations made by the observers and about our complaints. I only wish to direct the attention of the Security Council members to these reports. 39. Where does the end lie for Israel’s acts of aggression? Where does the end lie for its arrogant defiance of the Security Council, of United Nations resolutions? The Council, following many Lebanese complaints, has strongly 40. We have put our trust and faith in the Council from the very beginning. Israel has not offered anything but contempt for the Council. We all recall-and I had occasion to recall it recently in my letters to you, Mr. Presidentwhat kind of attitude the Israeli representative had towards the Council when he declared, right here, on 31 December 1968 (1462nd meeting/, that the Council was morally, legally and politically bankrupt. 41. I mention this because we have trust in the United Nations; we have trust in the Charter; we have trust in the purposes and principles of the Charter. Because of this trust, we come to the Security Council for justice, justice against the aggressor that has been disturbing the peace of the Middle East and of the world for many many years, that has been defying the many resolutions adopted by the Security Council and by the General Assembly, the aggressor that has been defying every effort to promote conditions of peace or to promote a peaceful settlement of the Middle East question. 42. It is high time, I think, that the Security Council took decisive action. I think it is high time that the Council should try its hand on Chapter VII of the Charter, The Charter has provided for enough means, for enough measures, to curb the aggressors. But my request to you, tonight, Mr. President, and to the members of the Council, is mainly for two things at the present stage. First we request a very strong condemnation of Israel for its repeated acts of aggression against Lebanon, on the basis of the unassailable facts which I have related to the Council. Secondly, the Lebanese Government requests that the Syrian and Lebanese officers who were kidnapped, ab. ducted, by Israeli armed forces on 21 June 1972, be returned immediately to Lebanon. We ask the Council to act promptly on this matter because non-action, or non. decisive action, will only play into the hands of the aggressor. It would be like a recompense for his acts. We hope that justice will be done and will be done promptly.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Israel, to whom I now give tie floor.

Mr. President, please accept the expressions of my highest regard for you and your office. 45. On 20 June, Arab terror organizations based in Lebanon served notice that they intend to pursue their murderous operations. In the morning of that day they opened bazooka fire on an Israeli civilian bus in the Har Dov area. Two elderly passengers, a man and his wife, travelling on the bus were wounded. Several hours later two Israeli soldiers were injured by the explosion of a mine planted in the same region by a terror squad from Lebanon. 46. In communiques issued in Beirut on 20 and 21 June, the so-called Palestine Liberation Organization, the um- 47. On 21 June, the Israeli Air Force and Israeli artillery reacted in self-defence against these concentrations in order to aver& additional attacks against Israel. At the same time an Israeli patrol encountered a military convoy approximately 100 metres from the border. The convoy opened fne on the patrol and in the ensuing clash five Syrian officers, one Lebanese officer, a soldier and four gendarmes were taken prisoner. 56. Years have passed, but the objective has remained the same. “We have resolved to drench this land with blood , . . to throw you into the sea for good”, vowed on 23 October 1966 Hafa al-Assad, at that time Defence Minister and today President of Syria. 57. On 18 May 1967 President Nasser announced: “The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in final extermination”, That is the way Hitler spoke in his orgy of bloodshed: final liquidation, final extermination of the Jewish people. Even the lesson of the 1967 hostilities has not affected this attitude, “We will move to the containment of Israel, and after that to . . , its eradication”, Abdel Nasser defiantly proclaimed on 10 April 1968. 48. The Egyptian governmental Middle East News Agency and other offical Arab media of information, as well as the terror organizations themselves, have confirmed that the Israeli action was directed against fedayeen bases and that most of the casualties were members of the terror organizations. 49, Early this morning, terror squads again opened bazooka fire from Lebanon, this time on the town of Kiryat Shmona. A building housing more than 100 civilians was hit, causing damage but, fortunately, no casualties. Israeli forces returned fire in the direction from which the bazooka attack came. 58. His successor, President Anwar Sadat, has made it clear in statement after statement that Israel’s withdrawal to the pm-1967 lines would be only a prelude to the total destruction of the State and people of Israel. “Israel’‘-he declared on 17 February 1972-“is a foreign limb which has been forced on to the body of the Arab nation and that body rejects it.” 50. Several hours later Israeli aircraft struck at a base of terrorists in the Deir el-Ashair area of Fatahland. A broadcast of the terror organizations from Radio Deraa, Syria, announced today: “Enemy planes attacked our base in Deir el-Ashair”. 59. His close collaborator and adviser, Al-Ahram’s editor Hassanein Heykal, explained: “There are only two specific Arab goals at this stage: first, the elimination of the consequences of the 1967 aggression through Israel’s withdrawal from all the lands it occupied that year; and secondly the elimination of the consequences of the 1948 aggression through the eradica tion of Israel.” 51. Israel continues to hope that the Government of Lebanon will decide to abide by its international obligations and will put an end to the criminal activities of the terror organizations thus making it unnecessary for Israel to exercise its right of self-defence by measures of its own against the terror groups and their bases. 60. It is not only the objective of the Arab war against Israel that is savage. The methods applied to attain it are equally outrageous. Inevitably war brings sorrow and suffering to the civilian population, but Arab terror warfare waged against Israel has tried to glorify as a virtue the wanton slaughter of innocent men, women and children. 52, War is evil and cruel. However, the Arab war launched in 1948 against Israel’s independence and pursued till today has brought warfare to the lowest depths of savagery and inhumanity. Not since the Nazi holocaust in Europe has the physical annihilation of an entire people been an objective of war. The aim of the Arab onslaught against Israel was openly proclaimed to be the massacre of the Jewish people in Israel. On 15 May 1948, Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, informed the United Nations on behalf of the Arab States which had invaded Israel: “This will be a momentous war of extermination, which will be spoken of in history like the Mongolian massacres”. 61. Nothing can conceal this fundamental criminality of the Arab attitude towards Israel. No sophistry can attenuate the guilt of a war unleashed to destroy the people of Israel, a war which in President Nasser’s words on the eve of the 1967 hostilities “is in effect since 1948” and continues till this very day. No dialectic contortions, no borrowed slogans are capable of whitewashing murder for the sake of murder, The ambushing of school buses, the planting of mines, the throwing of grenades into peaceful crowds, the blowing up of civil aircraft with passengers aboard are despicable crimes whatever the pretext for their commission, When these crimes are committed for the avowed purpose of annihilating a people and demolishing its State, a Member of the United Nations, they become international crimes against humanity of a starkly fiendish nature, Their initiators and perpetrators must be considered as foul criminals; their apologists as accessories to crime. 53. In subsequent years Arab leaders have proclaimed again and again that they are striving to “eradicate Israel,” “to throw the Jews into the sea,” “to liquidate the Zionist State.” 54. On 11 October 1949, only a few months after the signature of the General Armistice Agreement with Israel, the Egyptian Foreign Minister announced that Egypt’s goal was to annihilate Israel. 63. When in 1948 the Arab States launched their war of total destruction against the nascent Jewish State, terror warfare became part of their arsenal. In the last 24 years, whenever the Arab regular armies suffered defeat or felt hesitant about engaging in full-scale hostilities, they have resorted to terror carried out by special organizations established for that purpose. 64. Thus, to claim, as the Lebanese Government sometimes does, that terror operations from Lebanon are a function of the presence in that country of Palestinian refugees is to play on gullibility or ignorance. For almost two decades the Israel-Lebanese frontier served as an example of tranquillity and coexistence, while Palestinian refugees have lived in Lebanon since 1948. During that period, Israeli and Lebanese farmers cultivated their land side by side. Israeli and Lebanese shepherds peacefully watched over their flocks in adjacent meadows. On the Israeli side a highway runs along the entire border only a few metres from Lebanese territory. A parallel road follows the length of the boundary on the Lebanese side. Visitors crowded into the beautiful countryside. Travellers waved to each other across the line. That remained the situation after 1967 as well, until the Arab Governments and the terror organizations sponsored by them decided that Lebanese territory would be the most appropriate base for continuing their aggression against Israel. The Syrian cease-fire line remained relatively calm because the Syrian authorities, fully in control of the terror organizations on Syrian soil, preferred that they operate from neighbouring Lebanon. The Jordan river line quietened down when the Jordanian Government curtailed the terror organizations. The Lebanese Government, however, allowed the terror groups to turn Lebanon into their base of operations and to establish their headquarters in Beirut, From there their tentacles reach abroad. 65. The extent of tenor warfare waged at any particular time from an Arab country has no correlation whatever to the presence or absence of Palestinians in that country or to their numbers. The Arab terror organizations, established, financed and equipped by Arab Governments and frequently commanded by officers seconded from regular Arab armies, operate whenever and wherever the Arab Governments allow them to operate. That is precisely what the Lebanese Government is doing today. 67. Arab terror has been from its very inception a method of warfare against the life of the Jewish people, against the independence of the Jewish State. It is a method bom of blind hatred, steeped in cowardice, reflecting the failure cf the Arab States to attain the objective of their war against Israel-the demolition of the State and the ravage of its people. This despicable mode of warfare, directed primarily against the civilian population, is a product of the fanat. icism and bloodlust which is characteristic of Arab hostility toward Israel, and which culminated in the heinous massacre at Lod airport on 30 May 1972. 68. On that day three gunmen, who had arrived at Lod on a regular Air France flight en route from Paris and Rome, entered the passenger terminal, took out of their luggage automatic rifles and grenades and opened fire and hurled the grenades indiscriminately at the crowd at the airport, Twenty-five persons were killed and 78 wounded. Among the dead were 16 American Christian pilgrims from Puerto Rico, five of them women. 69. Two of the assailants were killed. The third, who was caught alive, testified that he and his accomplices were Japanese nationals recruited by an Arab terror organization known as the “Popular Front”, trained by it in a camp in the vicinity of Beirut and dispatched on their dastardly mission from Beirut. Immediately after the massacre, it was the Beirut headquarters of the Popular Front that announced its responsibility for the slaughter. 70. The Lod massacre took place shortly after Arab terrorists, again operating from Lebanon, had seized on 8 May a Sabena aircraft and prepared to blow it up with 100 passengers aboard, but were foiled by Israeli forces. 71. The entire world was aghast. Expressions of shock and condemnation of the Lod outrage came from Governments, organizations, public figures and media of information. The Secretary-General of the United Nations issued a statement that he was “shocked at this ruthless and irresponsible act of violence against innocent people in an international airport.” Pope Paul called the massacre at Lod “a senseless and atrocious crime”. Governments of Security Cound members expressed their abhorrence. 73. In the Arab States, however, there was macabre jubilation. “TJie self-sacrifice in Lydda is a testimony of the greatness of those young men, which is parallel to the great justice of the Palestinian cause”, announced a broadcast from Cairo on 31 May. “The operation was effective”, boasted the radio, “and without flaw, full of courage and placed the enemy in a state of fright and complete paralysis.” And the reactions in Syria were similar, 79. The image of a peace-loving little country which Lebanon is trying to project here is nothing but a cover for the hostile activities which the terror organizations are permitted to carry on in Lebanon with a view to sowing murder and destruction in Israel. The Lebanese Government is not a passive bystander; the support it has extended to the terror organizations has been active and tangible. 74. Egypt’s Prime Minister, Aziz Sidky, gave the massacre the official Arab blessing. On 1 June he declared: 80. Thus, on 3 November 1969, an agreement of cooperation was formally concluded in Cairo between the Government of Lebanon and the terror organizations. General Emil Bustani, Commander&Chief of the Lebanese Army, signed on behalf of his Government. The notorious Yasser Arafat, who had said that “peace for us means Israel’s destruction and nothing else”, signed for the terror organizations, That accord, supplemented by the additional agreements of February 1970, April 1970 and May 1970, constitutes the basis on which the terror squads continue to operate freely on Lebanese territory and from it. “I want to say that what happened at Lod proves that we can, with Allah’s help, achieve victory’ in our battle with Israel. This is the only reaction I have on this’matter. “I want to speak about what the fedayeen wrought at Lod airport. I want to refer to this subject from one aspect which is the implication of the fact that three men with three sub-machine guns could succeed in accomplishing what occurred at Lod Airport. This action reveals the truth about Israel. Where is the talent, the genius, the organization and the supreme capability which are unequalled in the whole world? ” 81. Since then, 548 terror attacks have been perpetrated from Lebanese territory. Forty-four Israelis were killed and 190 wounded in those attacks. Moreover, 75 civilians have been killed and 109 injured in Arab terror assaults originating from Lebanon and directed against international aviation. 75. When such are the reactions to premeditated carnage of innocent people, when such views are coupled with the indoctrination carried on for years that the State of Israel and its people should be annihilated, it is not surprising that the thirst for blood should remain unquenched and that vows be made to continue such crimes in the future. 82. There is no way in which the Lebanese Government could evade responsibility for those attacks. Like any other Governhent in the world, the Lebanese Government must be held responsible for what is going on inside Lebanon. It is the Lebanese Government that is responsible for the agreement of co-operation with the terror organizations, Who, if not the Government of Lebanon, is accountable for harbouring the headquarters of those organizations in Beirut and for permitting them to use Lebanese territory as a base for attacks on Israel? Who, if not the Lebanese Government, has allowed high-ranking Syrian officers to plan and prepare operations hostile to Israel on Lebanese soil? 76. And, indeed, Radio Assifa of Cairo proclaimed on 31 May: “These are initiatives which wilI be multiplied in their timing, location and method.” 77. Israel hoped that the international outcry, in the wake of the Lod massacre, against Arab terror attacks would restore the Arab Governments to reason. The Secretary General and various Governments tried to impress upon the Arab States, and especially upon Lebanon and Egypt, the need to terminate the terror operations. In letter after letter to the President of the Security Council, Israel called on the Governments of Lebanon and Egypt to put an end to the murderous operations of the terror organizations. 83. It is sheer arrogance and mockery to declare, as Lebanese spokesmen have, that Lebanon is not required to safeguard Israel’s security, It has never been suggested that Lebanon should play such a role. However, it is the duty of the Lebanese Government to ensure that its territory is not used as a springboard for aggression against a neighbouring State. This is a fundamental obligation under international law and the Charter of the United Nations. When Lebanon repudiates that obligation it leaves Israel no alternative but to act in self-defence. Lebanon cannot at one and the same time refuse to abide by its obligations in respect of international peace and security and expect that Israel, the victim of Lebanon’s lawlessness, take no measures to protect itself and its citizens. That is precisely what Israel was compelled to do. 78. The Arab reaction was one of callousness and frivolity. In disregard for established and generally known facts and in brazen contempt for its obligations, the Lebanese Government simply disclaimed responsibility for the dastardly attacks initiated, planned and perpetrated from its territory. Yet, it is a matter of common knowledge that Lebanon is today the main base for terror operations against Israel. Some 5,000 terrorists are on Lebanese soil: some in the southern region, some in what is called FatahIand and some in the east, close to the Syrian border. The terror squads are not confined to these areas; Lebanon as a whole is becoming to an increasing degree a stronghold 90. Invading the territory of the southern part of Lebanon in the area of Ramiyah, which is situated six kilometres from the border with Israel, an Israel detachment consisting of three tanks and two armoured personnel carriers opened fire on and captured a Syrian military delegation in Lebanese territory. The Syrian officers were unarmed and were making an observation tour in civilian vehicles, as Ambassador Ghorra has informed us here. The Israelis also captured a Lebanese officer and three soldiers who were accompanying the delegation. Several Lebanese soldiers were killed. 86. In fact, it is the inability of the United Nations, throughout the years, to deal equitably and effectively with Arab aggression pursued against Israel since 1948 that has been one of the most serious international failings. For years Israel has called on the Security Council to take action to try and stop Arab armed attacks against Israel and its people. The Council has remained silent. Whether because of the veto or because of its composition, the Council has been unable to condemn even the murder in cold blood of innocent Israeli citizens, perpetrated in attacks from neighbouring Arab States. The fact that Israeli prisoners of war have languished for years in Syrian and Egyptian captivity and that the Arab Governments have refused to agree to an exchange of prisoners with Israel has gone unnoticed. 87. If one examines Security Council resolutions it appears as if Jewish blood, Jewish suffering and Jewish grief are of no concern to it. It is only when Israel, as a last

The Security Council has convened today in an emergency meeting at this late hour because of new aggressive provocations by Israel against neighbouring Arab countries. The facts are well known. The distinguished representative of Lebanon, Ambassador Ghorra, expounded them in his statement before the Security Council. The whole of world public opinion knows about them from press, radio and information agency reports. 89. On 21 June Israel carried out a new armed attack 011 Lebanon. Israeli armoured units and military aircraft invaded Lebanese territory and Lebanese air space, opening fire on and causing destruction in Lebanese inhabited localities. Israeli artillery shelled Lebanese territory. There have been casualties among the peaceful civilian population, Acting in violation of the conditions of the cease-fine between Lebanon and Israel, the aggressor captured mili. tary personnel of the Arab side. 9 1, The Syrian delegation, which had come to Lebanon at the invitation of the Lebanese army command, was making an observation tour in the southern part of the country when it was attacked without provocation and captured by the Israeli raiders. 92. Two hours later Israeli aircraft, tanks and artillery attacked inhabited localities in that area, causing casualties and destruction. An official spokesman of the Israeli army acknowledged the capture of the Syrian officers in Lebanese territory. 93. This new aggression by Israel cannot be viewed as anything other than a piratical act which is incompatible with the elementary principles of international law. It is one more instance of the most flagrant and cynical violation by Israel of Security Council resolutions and the United Nations Charter. 95. On 13 June, 16 Israeli aircraft violated Egypt’s air space in the northern part of the Suez Canal. The Egyptian air force repulsed the raiders. On the same day Israeli warships appeared off the Lebanese coast. For several days the Israelis regularly carried out reconnaissance flights over Lebanese and Syrian territory. 96. The Israeli militarists are in essence claiming that Israel has the right to engage in permanent arbitrary military action in the Middle East. At the same time, with the help of the Zionist propaganda media, Israel has intensified its campaign of threats and blackmail against the Arab States of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. 97, The situation, therefore, is that Israel is continuing the aggressive and reckless policy in the Middle East which has been repeatedly condemned by the Security Council and the United Nations, a policy which results in the maintenance in that area of dangerous military tension fraught with extremely serious consequences for international peace. 102. Sabotaging the establishment of a just peace in the Middle East the Israeli Zionists are conducting a deliberate and systematic campaign of threats and military and political blackmail against the Arab countries, making absurd and outrageous annexationist claims and demands on their Arab neighbours, trying to entrench themselves in the Arab lands they occupied in 1967 and forcibly ejecting Arabs from those lands with the clear purpose of perpetuating the armed conflict in the Middle East and continuing their policy of aggression and expansionism. 98. As usual, the aggressor is trying to shift the blame to the victim of the aggression and is trying to cover up and justify its piratical attacks with trumped-up excuses. The statement today by the Israeli representative and the appeal by Israel to the Security Council are nothing but a hypocritical and deceitful trick of Israeli propaganda, a trick which, however, cannot mislead anyone. It is perfectly clear to all that Israel itself, which committed aggression in 1967 against the Arab countries and is trying to hold on to the Arab lands it seized, is the party which is basically and primarily the culprit in the abnormal and tense situation in the Middle East. It is Israel with its policy of international brigandage and violence in the Middle East, and the Zionist circles supporting it, which bear full responsibility for the incidents, casualties and acts of violence in that area, for the dangerous and tense situation in the Middle East and for the transformation of the area into one of the most dangerous hotbeds of war. 103. The Israeli Zionists are cynically using the conflict in the Middle East as an instrument of political speculation, a means of extorting fabulous dividends in the form of assistance received from abroad and from international Zionist circles. 104. It is for that reason that the Government of Israel is now determined to ignore Security Council resolution 242 (1967), undermine the efforts of the Secretary General’s Special Representative, Ambassador Jarring, and defy the opinion of the overwhelming majority of States Members of the United Nations as reflected in General Assembly resolution 2799 (XXVI) of 13 December 1971, which expresses support for Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and Ambassador Jarring’s initiative of 8 February 1971 [see SJlO403, of 30 November 1971, annex I/. 99. Having committed acts of violence and aggression against the neighbouring Arab countries and having seized their territory, Israel now wants the peoples who are the victims of the aggression to cease their resistance, their legitimate struggle, to become submissive and not to respond to the Israeli acts of violence by engaging in a struggle for liberation. This is an absurd and cynical demand. 105. The Government of Israel is opposing international efforts tci bring about a peaceful political settlement in the Middle East, opposing consideration of the question of the Middle East by the Security Council and the General Assembly, opposing the consultations held by the permanent members of the Security Council with a view to helping Ambassador Jaltig implement the Security Council resolution. Who it is that is helping Israel in this is also well known to everyone by now. 100. New acts of aggression are being committed by Israel precisely at a time when progress is being made in the international situation and the international climate is improving. Important international problems are being successfully solved on a realistic basis. Once again there are prospects for a resumption of the Jarring mission and, consequently, opportunities are growing for the implem mentation of the Security Council resolution [242 (1967/l 106. This negative position of Israel with regard to the peaceful political settlement in the Middle East envisaged in the decisions of the main organs of the United Nations-the Security Council and the General Assembly-and Israel’s continued policy of aggression against the Arab countries clearly reveal the reckless and criminal nature of the policy 108. However, the foes of peace in Israel who favour the appropriation of Arab territories under cover of the false slogan “the defence of the people of Israel” are not only aggressive chauvinists but also short&hted adventurers pursuing a policy that runs counter to the main trend in contemporary international relations, which is towards peace, the strengthening of international security and.the easing of international tensions. 109. They fail to see that now, five years after the temporary military success of the Israeli aggressors, the situation in the Middle East is determined by long-ten factors which have brought about a considerable shift in the balance of forces in the area, Now, imperialism and its ally, Zionism, are no longer able to dictate their will to the Arab peoples. 110. The Middle East is undergoing changes which may prove to be decisive in ensuring a just and lasting peace in the area. Of course, the stubborn refusal of Israel to begin working for a settlement in the Middle East on the basis of the United Nations decisions only confirms the inalienable legitimate right of the Arab States, the victims of aggression, to resort to various means of attaining a just peace in the Middle East, 111. The Arab countries have convincingly demonstrated to the whole world their readiness for a peaceful political settlement of the conflict and for the establishment of lasting peace in the Middle East. However, the stubborn refUSil of Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories it has seized and the constant provocations of the Israeli mihtarists against the Arab States continue to exacerbate the situation in the Middle East and to create the threat of a military conflagration. 114. The resolution of the African States reflects with the utmost clarity the view of world public opinion, of the United Nations and of the world community-with perhaps a single exception. Israel with its policy of aggression has placed itself in a position of total international isolation to the same extent as has the racist regime of South Africa with its policy of racism and apartheid, 115. The recent provocative and aggressive acts by Israel against Lebanon and other Arab countries are once again aggravating the tension created by the military situation in the Middle East and increasing the danger of a new explosion in the area. 116. The Security Council must categorically condemn these new acts of aggression by the Israeli militarists and reaffirm its opinion and its demand, as expressed today during unofficial consultations among all 15 members of the Security Council, concerning the need for the immediate release of the members of the Syrian delegation seized by the Israeli raiders. The Security Council must compel Israel to put an end to its policy of aggression, arbitrary action and international piracy in the Middle East.

I thank you, Mr. President, for giving me the chance to make a preliminary statement at this juncture of the debate on the question at hand, 118. The representative of Lebanon has already given US a concise and correct picture of the aggression which has been taking place from 21 June up to today, 23 June, on his peaceful country, On the other hand, we listened to a reply to this precise statement of the Lebanese represen. tative which was full of reminiscences from history and Of details that the Council knows very well were not correct in 120. My attention has been drawn also to something said by the representative of Israel in justification of the aggression which took place between the 21st and the 23rd of this month. He stated that it was from Lebanese territory that two Israeli citizens were wounded-and that was all there was to it. Let us assume that was correct. But what was the result of this alleged aggression on Israelis, if we can call it “aggression”? The result was: 30 people killed in Lebanon, 9 people kidnapped in limousines-I underline “limousines”- and villages and the property of peaceful people destroyed. Again, the reply is that this was done in self-defence. 125. The Arab representatives in the United Nations made it clear to the Secretary-General that the threat was not justifiable in any way and certainly not by the Charter of the United Nations. The military aggression of 21 June could be justified neither as a reprisal for the Lod incident nor by the allegations in the letter of 20 June from the representative of Israel [S/l 07061 to you, Mr. President, nor by the statement which we heard at the beginning of this debate. The fact is that Israeli armed forces entered illegally into Lebanese lands, as they had done a number of times before, massacring innocent people and destroying houses as usual, Israeli military planes joined in that barbaric action at the same time, and indeed today, 23 June, 11 innocent people, mostly women and children, have been killed. 121 I That is the story as I see it. I am really trying to limit myself to the events that took place between 21 and 23 June, resulting in Israeli armed troops killing 30 innocent people, kidnapping and abducting 9 people, and destroying houses. This is the question of today. Of course, this is not a new picture; this has happened a number of times before and the Council is aware of it. We are now fed a long argument which tries to avoid the discussion of the incident that we have been considering today. Indeed the whole reply to the concise and precise statement of the Lebanese representative was not only naive but evasive, in my view, and tried all the time to avoid the real issue of today. 126. As if these repeated aggressions by land and air were not excessive in themselves, Israeli armed forces “hm= ousine-jacked”-if I may so call it-five Syrian officers and Lebanese citizens, although we all know that the Syrian officers were on a traditional exchange visit to Lebanon. This is in the view of our delegation, simply abduction and kidnapping. 122. The representative of the USSR has taken up the question in its entirety and has recalled its history from the time the real aggression began in 1948. I myself was going to quote the resolution adopted unanimously a few days ago by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its ninth ordinary session, held at Rabat from 12 to 15 June 1972. It was not surprising that the summit Conference at Rabat should adopt this unanimous condemnation, point out who the aggressor is and demand that that aggressor withdraw from occupied lands and stop aggression. 127. My delegation strongly condemns these repeated and unwarranted military aggressions on Lebanon, a United Nations Member State, by Israel, and the indiscriminate massacre of innocent people, the destruction of their homes and the abduction and kidnapping of Syrian and Lebanese citizens through planned ambush. 128. Ever since the attack by Israeli armed forces on the Beirut airport in 1968, this Council, in resolution after resolution, has condemned those premeditated aggressive actions by Israel on Lebanon, and has given severe warnings of implementing those resolutions. 123. In this statement I, like the representatives of Lebanon and the USSR, am limiting myself to the question at hand, I should like to take up the matter from a different line than that followed so far, I am looking at it backwards, SO to speak. During our meeting this morning, in an informal discussion of the letter of 22 June from the representative of the Arab Syrian Republic [S/10710] asking for the immediate release of the five senior officers kidnapped by the Israeli armed forces inside Lebanese 129. As I said before, only a few days ago the Organimtion of African Unity, with 22 Heads of State present, unanimously condemned Israel and asked its withdrawal from occupied lands, with all the other implications of that. 131, Mr. HUANG Hua (China) (interpretation @om Chinese]: The Chinese delegation would like to make the following remarks on the current Israeli armed aggression against Lebanon. 132, First, within the short space of a few months Since the Security Council adopted its resolution 313 (1972) on 28 February 1972, the Israeli authorities have continuously carried out threats and military provocations against Lebanon. Since 21 June the Israeli authorities, again in disregard of the just condemnation by the peoples of the world, have flagrantly dispatched aircraft and ground forces to launch armed aggression against the border areas of Lebanon, This is another grave crime of aggression committed by the Israeli Zionists following their large-scale armed Invasion of Lebanon in February last. This is a wanton provocation against the Lebanese and other Arab peoples, a gross violation of the United Nations Charter and utter contempt for Security Council resolution 3 13 (1972). This is absolutely intolerable to all justice-upholding and peace-loving countries and peoples of the world. The Chinese Government and people strongly condemn the aggressive crimes of the Israeli Zionists and express firm support to the Lebanese Government and people in their just struggle to resist aggression, protect their own territory and safeguard their State sovereignty. 133. Secondly, it should be pointed out that it is with imperialist abetment and support that the Israeli Zionists have become so rampant and have repeatedly carried out wanton provocations against the Arab countries. The current renewed armed aggression by the Israeli authorities against Lebanon not only is an open violation of Lebanese territory and sovereignty but also is motivated by the criminal design to suppress and wipe out the Palestinian people’s revolutionary armed forces by means of military aggression and political blackmail. 134. A thief crying ‘“Catch the thief! ” This is the habitual practice adopted by the Israeli Zionists to justify their acts of aggression. No amount of sophistry on the part of the Israeli representative can change the conclusive fact that Israel has carried out aggression against the Arab countries and peoples over a long period. A just cause enjoys abundant support while an unjust cause finds little support. The Palestinian and other Arab people have received increasingly greater sympathy and support from the people of the whole world in their just struggle to restore national rights and recover the lost territories, whereas the Israeli Zionists have landed themselves in an extreme isolation before the peoples of the world as a result of their obstinate Policies of aggression and expansion, We are convinced that so long as the Palestinian and other Arab peoples uphold

I hardly think we shall be able to conclude thii debate this evening, but I would not want ihis meeting to end without the voice of France being heard. I shall not in any way prejudge the decision that the Council may adopt on the matter before us, but I do feel it necessary to recall that my Government censures all acts of violence, and condemns all reprisals, regardless of their reason. 137. In the case before us, a country friendly to France has been sorely beset. Operations carried out in these last few days on the territory of Lebanon by Israeli land and air forces have caused military and civilian losses and considerable material damage, the list of which is certainly PO! complete. Syrian officers who were near to the frontier were kidnapped and are being held in Israel. Despite Ihe reinforcement of the United Nations observer posts, a climate of insecurity now prevails along the Israeli-Lebanese frontier. From information just given us it appears that military operations were even continuing today up to a few hours before our meeting. 138. My delegation insists that such military operations be halted forthwith and that an end, be put to the massacn? ST innocent persons. Violence can only engender more violence in an endless chain which will make it so much more difficult to achieve peace in that sorely beset region.

I now call on the representative csf Lebanon, who wishes to speak in exercise of the right of reply.

I have just seen tile document circulated under the symbol S/7930/Add.1646.1 note that this supplemental information, received from the United Nations Acting Chief of Staff of UNTSO, mentions the fact that “Israeli Forces’ Phantoms dropped five bombs on Deir-el-Ashair, causing the following casualties and damage: 10 killed, 12 wounded and 4 houses destroyed”‘. That is based on information received from the Senior Lebanese delegate. 141. That is the information I had, but before coming to the Council I received further supplemental information, and I mentioned in my statement that 17 Lebanese civilians had been killed as a result of that attack on Deir-el-Ashair, including women and children, and 12 were injured, 144. I should like to quote here from an article by Boaz Evron published on 3 December 1971 in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharunot under the title “They are not destroying us”. Mr. Evron said: 148. Mrs. Meir was right in absolving Japan from any connexion with that crime committed at Lod airport. We know that the Japanese people are peaceful people, building a peaceful society, making a great contribution to the cause of peace in the world. They definitely could not be held responsible for the acts of three of their citizens at Lod. But it was necessary to find Lebanon to be the culprit. Mrs. Meir, in this Security Council, in the Eichmann case when Argentina brought a case against Israel for the abduction of Eichmann, developed the theory that under international law Israel could not be held responsible for the actions of its citizens outside Israel, But since then we have learned what happened. There is ample evidence that those who abducted Eichmann in Argentina were not only citizens of Israel but agents of Israel sent by the Israeli Government to abduct Eichmann. Still, Mrs. Meir came to the Security Council and washed her hands and said Israel was not responsible for their acts. Now she wants to hold Lebanon responsible for the acts of three Japanese who have no connexion whatsoever with Lebanon. My Prime Minister stated categorically on 3 June, and the Chief of Security of Lebanon has stated also, that those three Japanese never set foot on Lebanese territory. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that those persons had passed through Lebanon or had been in Lebanon. We receive over a million and a half people every year in Lebanon. Ours is an open society, They come from all over the world to US. Thousands of Japanese come to us. We have Japanese restaurants. We have friendly relations and developing trade relations with Japan, and these relations between Japan and the whole Arab world are increasing. The fact that Japanese have come to our territory does not make Lebanon, the Lebanese Government or the Lebanese people culprits connected with an incident committed on Israeli soil. “In this country, whenever they want to lead a rational argument about politics, someone shouts: ‘Sadat (or Kosygin or de Gaulle and now, who knows-maybe even Rogers) wants to destroy us! ’ And from that moment on, there is no longer any argument. Immediately, eyes glaze and fill with blood, a hoarse roar breaks out of the throat, the fingers intertwine to kill and destroy, to strangle and to break down, and then everything is permitted for us, because everything is permitted to those who belong to the people of the Six Million.” That is an Israeli who is saying those words. 145. The representative of Israel goes on to speak about the campaiprn of hatred of the Arabs against Israel. I should like to quote again. In another article, also in Yedi0t Ahamnot of 3 December 1971, Mr. Yehoshua Bar-Yosef wrote, under the title “Kh~w your enemy”: “Even if I will take the risk of being called an inciter to war, I suggest to the Ministry of Education adding to the teaching programme the subject, “Know your enemy”. In this part we must put into the mind and heart of every boy and girl the cruel and ugly fact about the extermination plans of the Arab leaders for us. “One who said the horrible sentence ‘I will pass you by and see you covered with your blood, and will say to you “in your blood-my life! ” ’ did not glorify war with flowery words; he only gave the ugliness and necessity in war. “With this spirit, we have to educate the coming generation.” 149. After t$e consensus adopted on 20 June by the Council on hijacking [S/10705/, Mr. Tekoah distributed a statement, and he has,repeated today the same charge he made in that statement, that Lebanon bears the responsibility. I should like to say that this is a very cheap way to exploit the consensus of the Security Council. Lebanon is second to none in its concern for the safety of civil aircraft, crews and passengers. We have a 25.year record of 146. This is the kind of spirit that Israel is spreading among its youth, and it comes here to accuse Lebanon, a peaceful country, a country that has been attached to peace-I would not say more than any other country, but as much as any other country in the world. 150. Lebanon has acted positively in all circumstances in matters of civil aviation. Against Lebanon’s record stands that of Israel, a dark and ugly record indeed. On 28 December 1968 Israel initiated a series of acts of violence against international civil aviation. Its airborne commandos treacherousIy attacked the open and defenceless international airport at Beirut. Most of our commercial airplanes were destroyed on the ground. This act of aggression was met by world-wide indignation and condemnation. In its resolution 262 (1968) of 3 1 December 1968 the Security Council condemned “Israel for its premeditated military action” and issued a solemn warning to Israel that if such acts were repeated the Council would consider further steps. 151. Let ‘us underline the, fact that the Council condemned Israel. Thus Israel stands as the only country in the world-I repeat: the only country in the world-condemned for an operation against civil aviation carried out by its military air force under specific and wanton instructions from the Government of Israel. That is the only Govemment in the world which stands condemned because of its action against international civil aviation, No Government with such an ugly record can be expected to enjoy even a semblance of moral credibility when it carries out its vile campaign of lies against Lebanon.

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

I should like, first of all, to refer to the statement we have just heard from the representative of Lebanon. He declared with pride that so far Lebanon has not been condemned by the Security COUK$ for harbouring on its territory Arab terror organi- I Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, signed at Tokyo on 14 September 1963. 2 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970. 154. I take note of the fact that for the first time, after weeks and weeks, the representative of Lebanon ha conceded that the three gunmen responsible for the Lod massacre may have been in Lebanon. Indeed they ware. How they got there-whether on a tourist visa, whether by stealing across the border-is not important and is of no interest at all in the examination of the problem before the Security Council. What is important is that they were in Lebanon, that they were trained by the Popular Front, which maintains its headquarters in Beirut, that they were trained by that organization in Lebanon at a camp in the vicinity of Beirut, and that they were dispatched on their mission of slaughter from Beirut. 155. The representative of Lebanon claimed that I had spoken about many things. No, I spoke about one thing: 1 spoke only about the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon for permitting the kind of acts that occurred at Lod on 30 May to be initiated, planned and carried out from Lebanese territory. I stressed that this is a funda. mental principle of international law. It is a fundamental obligation of all Member States of the United Nations not to permit the organization and perpetration of acts of violence from their territory against the territory and people of neighbouring or any other States, and this obligation rests also upon the Government of Lebanon, The question, however, is not only responsibility for the massacre which occurred at Lod a few weeks ago; for that slaughter of innocent civilians was, after all, a mere culmination of a continuous pattern of attacks against the lives of innocent civilians-men, women and childrenwhich have been carried on for years now from Lebanese territory. I wish I could say that it was a culmination of such attacks and the end. But unfortunately the last few days have proved that this is not so and that these attacks are continuing, that the Government of Lebanon continues to disclaim any responsibility for what is happening inside its own territory and refuses to take any effective measures to put a stop to the acts of aggression and murder against Israel and its population, thus compelling the Government of Israel to take measures of its own in self-defence. 156. The representative of Lebanon referred to the alleged hostility which is being taught in Israeli schools towards OUT Arab neighbours and cousins. I would here on behalf of the Government of Israel officially invite the representative of Lebanon to come and visit Israel and the territories held by it since 1967, to do so at a time of his own choosing, to move about freely, to go to whatever school or institute of learning he wishes to visit and to see what is being taught in Israel about Arab civilization, about Islam, about the Arab peoples and their contribution to civilization. 157. He may have been affected by the memory of what had existed for years in areas under Arab occupation like Gaza and the west bank, where Israeli forces and represenhim ecmpare it With what h going on in F’atahland jn the j5g, The representative of the lJSSR said veq little that was new, Unfounded accusations and sometimes, unfortunately, slander against Israel have become the trademark ei Soviet statements. It is precisely this absence of real rhage in the Soviet attitude that underlines its gravity. The Soviet Union has played a negative role in the Middle East. 159, Its support of Arab aggression, its unlimited supplies cf anns to the Arab States and its encouregement of President Nasser in his warlike acts had decidedly cona tributed to the outbreak of hostilities in l‘)ci7. Since then, be Soviet Union’s unreserved identification with Arab hostility and intransigence has been one of the prime factors in the absence of progress towards peace. Of particular gravity is the persistent backing by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of Arab terror watfars directed against the State and people of Israel and expccially against its civilian population which, I regret to say, was reiterated again today by the representative of the Soviet Union. 164. The premeditated murderous attacks carried out by Arab terror organizations against civilians on land and in the air, such as the ambushing of schoolbuses or the massacre at Lad, are barbaric crimes which only the demented or most cowardly are capable of committing or initiating, and the criminality of those attacks is not diminished but aggravated by their motivation. They are being perpetrated as part of the campaign directed against the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, freedom and equality among nations. The Arab terror attacks are carried on under the banner of an openly avowed design to bring about the destruction of a Member State of the United Nations and of its people. Therefore no usurped slogans or semantic contortions used by those organizations can conceal this basic fact, 160. The cause of peace in the Middle East will not be served by the Soviet Government’s continuing its past policies of support for Arab aggression against Israel. It will not be served by the Soviet representative’s reiterating his groundless charges. The interests of peace in the region can only be buttressed by a change in Suvict policy, by the USSR’s abandoning an attitude which has for so long added fuel to the flames of the conflict and by its adopting at last a position of constructive equity, a position favouring peace, a position that would encourage the parties to fllove towards understanding and peace, 16.5. No one denies the Arab people’s national rights. Indeed, no people has vindicated its rights more impressively and extensively. The Arab people’s right to selfdetermination and independence is expressed in the sovereignty of l& Arab States Members of the United Nations-all part of the Arab nation, all speaking the same language, professing the same faith, bound by the same cultum Eten if each of those States is to be considered a separate branch of the Arab people, there is today no part of the Arab nation that has not attained independence and sovereignty, and that applies equally to the Arab people of Palestine. In Palestine there does exist the Arab State of Jordan, Palestinian in its geography, Palestinian in its population. In 1948 another Arab State could have been established in Palestine on the west bank of the River Jordan if the Arab States had not prevented its creation by invading the west bank and Gaza in defiance of the United Nations. men peace is attained in the Middle East it wit1 be up to the Arab people of Palestine to decide what the constitutional structure of the Arab State or States in Palestine slpxld be and whether that entity or those entities Would continue to be designated by the name of the River 161, The Government of Israel, like al1 peace&.)ving Gcvemi-nents, welcomes all signs of improvement in the iinemational sphere. As the representative of the USSR is aware, the improvement about which he has spoken has been brought about by the process of direct contact and negotiations between the parties. The Government of Israel hcPea that such an improvement will take place also in the Middle East situation, The Soviet llnion would make an lraPcrtant contribution in that direction if it were to lend its suPPort to the very same process which has improved the global situation-the process of direct contact and sedcus negotiations which is the only way to replace djstrust With mutual confidence and enmity with understand% and agreement. 162* ‘I& is the first time I have heard the representative Of China address himself to the Israel] problems, As he 167. The Chinese people, whose history, like that of the Jewish people, dates back thousands of years, and whose civjlization, like that of Judaism, has given birth to other great cultures and faiths, knows that history cannot be erased. Surely the Jewish people’s right to defend its existence and sovereignty is not inferior to that of other nations only because the conquest of Israel by imperial Rome took place not two or three hundred years ago but nineteen centuries before our time. 168. The Jewish people’s right to struggle against the consequences of that conquest have not been reduced by the fact that it was not only conquered but also taken into bondage by the invaders and carried off by them .LO foreign lands. If anything, the tenacity and perseverance which the Jewish people have shown and the suffering and sacrifice they have known in their struggle through the ages should command greater respect and sympathy. At a time when almost all the States represented at the Council table were still absent from the firmament of history, two States were already there-China, on the easternmost edge of the Asiav continent, and Israel, on the western shores of Asia. 169. For Israel and for China history does not begin with the Arab denial of the Jewish people’s right to restore its independence and sovereignty. It does not begin with Shukairy, the former leader of the Arab terror organizations, who vowed not to leave a single Jew alive in Palestine; or with Arafat, who continues under the banner “Death to all Jews, men, women and children”, That is why we are confident that the people of China will never repudiate its heritage of age-long history and that the Government of the People’s Republic of China will recognize the fundamental rights of the ancient Jewish people in its struggle for independence and equality with other nations and for peace and coexistence among the peoples of the Middle East. 170. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) hQns/ation from Russian): Here is an official document of 23 June [S/793O/Add.l6#6] which exposes the obvious fact that Israel is continuing its piratical policy, a policy of aggression. Ten people have been killed, twelve have been wounded and four houses have been destroyed. In the light of this official document submitted by the Acting Chief of Staff of UNTSO, no pirouettes or verbal tricks by the Israeli representative can hide these new international 172. The Israeli representative spoke of the right aT the Israeli people to exist. May I assure him that no om ti denying that right, but the Israeli people and the leaders do not have the right to pursue a poli international brigandage, to seize and appropriate the l;am& of others and to carry out piratical attacks on &H countries and peoples. Yet here is an official documenr, m official confirmation by a United Nations representative ;,ai a new piratical attack which has resulted in huarsm casualties, and no slander against the Soviet Union ~8 serve to cover up these well-known and obvious facts. 173. As to the policy of the USSR, we are proud th~tt~ policy regarding the question of the Middle East is receilr&E support and coincides with the policy of the l!tiirci Nations, the policy *of the Security Council, the polio 3f the countries of the Arab East and the policy oB thf countries of the whole of Africa. This is a policy of jur!ke, a policy of political settlement, a policy aimed nt riddlpg mankind of the threat of a new world war towards the Israeli aggressors are pushing not only the Middle and the peoples of that area but the entire world. T the policy of all peace-loving countries. If you want &:{L read Security Council resolution 242 (1967), read the resolution on the Middle East of the twenty-fifth SW&W ol’ the General Assembly [2628 (XXV)]; or read the ww lution on the Middle East of the twenty-sixth session o!+&& General Assembly /2799 (XXV1j], for which the ww whelming majority of representatives voted, in con nation of the policies of Israel and in support of &e initiative of Ambassador Jarring reflected in his welland fair memorandum of 8 February 1971. The Union voted in favour of these resolutions and i?&* supports them, together with the overwhelming majoriQ L:f States Members of the United Nations. Such is the polio Z’ the Soviet Union and no slanderous attacks by Ux representative of Israel can conceal these well-known f&s. 174. Finally, the poliw of the Soviet Union is that u&5 is set forth in the resolutiog of the whole of Africa ad@@8 by the Organization of African Unity, the stern voice oQ” &e African peoples warning the Israeli aggressors /see ,S/.&*“ylr.P of 20 July 19721; I shail read paragraph 3 thereof: “Deplores Israel’s negative and obstructive atfinc& which prevents the resumption of the Jarring Missinrr.W*.P 3 Quoted in English by the speaker. 175. Paragraph 4 reads: ‘lrrvites Israel to publicly declare its adherence to the principle of non-annexation of territories through the use of force;)‘? 181. That is the situation as regards the policy of the USSR, and we are proud that we are pursuing such a policy because it meets with universal support throughout the world. But Israel, as I have already stressed, finds itself in a sad and pitiful state of isolation. The Israeli leaders with their reckless and aggressive policy have led Israel into an impasse, And no outbursts of anti-Sovietism on the part of the Israeli representative will help him to justify an unjust cause. The routine outbursts of pathological anti-Sovietism on the part of the Israeli representative are his usual propaganda method of diverting the Security Council’s attention from a new act of aggression. His hostile attacks against the Soviet Union are an attempt to distort the essence of the policy of the Soviet Union, to slander that policy and to accuse the Soviet Union of supplying arms. There is not a grain of truth in that. It is sheer fabrication, sheer slander. We are doing our international duty in providing assistance to the victim of aggression. We are proud of this. We have helped, are helping now and will continue to help the Arab peoples who have been the victim of Israeli brigandage, aggression and arbitrary action. As Soviet representative, I vote in favour of this paragraph together with the Heads of State and Government of the African countries. 176, Paragraph 5 reads: “‘Invites Israel to withdraw immediately from all the occupied Arab territories to preJune 5 1967 lines in accordance with Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967;“.3 As Soviet representative, I vote in favour of this paragraph of the African resolution as well. That is the policy of the Soviet Union. 177. Paragraph 6 reads: “Reaffumr in the name of African solidarity and in pursuance of article II, paragraph 1 (c), of the OAU Charter, its effective support to the Arab Republic of Egypt in its legitimate struggle to recover totally and by every means its territorial integrity;“.3

I call on the representative of Lebanon.

The representative of Israel said that I had conceded that the three Japanese may have been in Lebanon. I had stated-and I should like this to be very clearly known-that the Prime Minister of Lebanon and the Chief of Security of Lebanon have categorically denied that the three Japanese who were responsible for the Lod incident had ever set foot in Lebanon. What I said was: “For the sake of argument, let us suppose that those [three Japanese] had passed through Lebanon”. It was a hypothetical case-only for the sake of argument. As Soviet representative, I vote in favour of this paragraph of the African resolution also. 178. Paragraph 7 reads: “Urges all member States of the OAU to give Egypt every assistance and calls on all Members of the United Nations Organization to intensify their action, in both international forums and the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, to take all initiatives for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Arab territories and the condemnation” -condemnation-“of Israel’s attitude which impedes the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) based on the United Nations Charter which forbids, under any pretext, the acquisition of territories through the use of force;“,3 184. In the conclusion of his speech the representative of Israel wanted to show his mastery of history. We are not going into a course of history here tonight, it is too late, In a very short sweeping statement he has wiped out every civilization between China and Israel. Naturally, we all admire Chinese history and Chinese culture. The Chinese are a great creative people. They have made tremendous contributions to art, culture, and so on. But to wipe out everything else in between and state that only China and Israel have existed from the dawn of history-that is assuming too much as far as Israel is concerned. As Soviet representative, I likewise vote in favour of this paragraph of the African resolution. 179. Paragraph 8 reads: 185. I am not going to make any claim about the 6,000 years of Lebanon’s contribution to history-that is not the point. The point is that Israel, which was created by the United Nations only 25 years or so ago, has become suddenly one of the oldest countries or the oldest country on the Asian continent along with China. “Requests all Member States of the United Nations to refrain from supplying Israel with any weapons, military equipment or moral support likely to enable it to strengthen its military potential and to perpetuate its occupation of Arab and African territories;“.3 And now, this same State is laying claim to several centuries of history. 187. Mr, HUANG Hua (China) (interpretation f?om Chinese): The Israeli representative has just referred to the incident at the Tel Aviv airport. The occurrence of this incident is unfortunate. However, as is known to all, the root cause of such incidents is none other than the aggression committed by the Israeli Zionists against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples over the past quarter century. It is entirely futile for the representative of Israel to use this as pretext to defend Israel’s unprovoked aggression against Lebanon. It is also totally intolerable that the Israeli representative should try wilfully to distort the Security Council’s decision on hijacking. 193. We know that over the past weeks Israeli leaders have been threatening Lebanon, as reported by the international press, with retaliatory actions because of the incident that took place at Lod airport. Israel has now executed those threats by shelling Lebanese towns, killing innocent civilians, including women and children, and destroying private property. 188. The Chinese Government and people f&y oppose Israeli aggression and firmly support the Palestinian people in their just struggle to return to their homeland, and the Arab peoples in their just struggle ‘to recover their lost territories and to safeguard their State sovereignty and territorial integrity until they win final victory. As long as Israel does not cease its policies of aggression, this just stand of the Chinese Government and people will never change.

My delegation considers the present emergency meeting of the Security Council both appropriate and timely,, in view of the gravity and danger of the situation in the Middle East resulting from the blatant Israeli aggression against Lebanon and the kidnapping of five high-ranking Syrian officers in Lebanon and the Lebanese officers accompanying them. 190. The Security Council should, in keeping with its responsibilities under the United Nations Charter, take prompt and resolute measures against the Israeli aggressors in order to bring about the immediate release of the kidnapped Syrian officers and the Lebanese officers accompanying them, without any delay whatsoever, and should condemn the Israeli aggressors, who have become a con- Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1 .OO (or equivalent in other currencies) 72-82121--Nbvember 1975-1,925 192. We have also listened to the statement of the representative of Israel, but the whole tenor of his statement was, as usual, an attempt to justify the blatant Israeli aggression. The image which the representative of Israel has tried to present to the Security Council does not correspond to the facts, because it is clear that it is Israel, not Lebanon, which has repeatedly committed flagrant acts of aggression against its neighbours. 194. The Security. Council now has irrefutable evidence of the brutal attack launched against Lebanon by Israel in a series of raids, as stated in the supplemental information submitted by the Acting Chief of Staff of UNTSO in document S/7930/Add. 1 b46. 195. The Security Council should not allow these acts of aggression to be committed by Israel without strong condemnation. My delegation expresses its deep sympathy and solidarity to both Lebanon and Syria and condemns this flagrant act of aggression by Israel.

There are no further speakers for this evening, which I suppose is a sign that at this stage the Council would prefer to adjourn the meeting. 197. If I hear no objection, it is my intention to convene the next meeting of the Security Council at 3 p.m. tomorrow in the expectation that by that time the members of the Council will be ready to continue with their consideration of the agenda items, and to submit concrete proposals for action by the Security Council, Themeetingroseat 11.35p.m.