S/PV.1650 Security Council

In accordance with a previous decision of the Council, I propose to invite the representatives of Lebanon and Israel to participate, without the right to vote, in the Council’s discussion of the matter inscribed on the Council’s agenda, Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/l650/Rev.l) 1. Adoption of the agenda. At the invitation of the eesident, Mr. E. Ghorra (Lebanon) and Mr. Y. Tekoah (Israel) took p&es at the Council tab le. 2, The situation in the Middle East: (a) 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); (6) Letter dated 26 June 1972 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10720).

If there is no objection, I shall invite the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic also to take a place at the Council tabIe. At the invitation of the President, Mr. G. J. Tomeh (Syrian Arab Republic) took a place at the Council table. 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).

In accordance with the decision taken by the Council at the 1649th meeting, 1 invite the representatives of Egypt, Kuwait and Jordan to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding that they will be called to the Council table when it is their turn to speak. The meeting was called to order at 8 p.m. Adoption of the agenda At the invitation of the President, Mr, A. E. Abdel Meguid (Egypt), Mr. A. Y. Bisham (Kuwait) and Mr. A. H. Sharaf (Jordanj took the places reserved for them.

The provisional agenda for this meeting of the Security Council is contained in document S/Agenda/l650/Rev.l. I should like to draw the attention of members of the Council to the fact that item 2 of the agenda, entitled “The situation in the Middle East”, now consists of two letters. The additional letter, dated 26 June 1972, is from the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic and is addressed to the President of the Security Council. This letter has already been circulated as document S/10720.

The Council will now continueafter a delay caused by extensive consultations today-its discussion of the matter inscribed on its agenda. As we had ample opporttinity at our last two meetings for an extensive debate on the issue before us, and in view of the consultations prior to this meeting, I would very much hope that this meeting will be the conclusive one, and that we shall be able to take the necessary decision; that, as I understand it, is the prevailing wish of members. Consequently, I hope that we shall be able to avoid-and this is my earnest appeal-any unnecessary repetition of the debate we have already had. In this I am guided not by any intention to deprive anyone of his rightful opportunity to express his views, but solely by the desire to have US all cooperate as much as possible in enabling the Council to take an important, necessary step in an urgent situation that calls for us to act as promptly as we possibly can. The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East: (a) 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); (6) Letter dated 26 June 1972 from ‘the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10720)

In my statement of Friday last [1648th meeting/ I 7. Before commenting on the draft resolution that has just been submitted by Belgium, France and the United Kingdom /S/10722], I should like to emphasize certain aspects of the matter we are considering. 8. This matter is but the regrettable continuation of all the others that, since the events of June 1967, have prompted the Counci! to meet repeatedly. Despite the resolutions adopted by the Council-most often unanimously-the situation in the region has constantly deteriorated, creating a hotbed of tension which constitutes a real threat to international peace and security. It therefore becomes necessary for the Council to pronounce itself clearly and without further delay on what happened on 21,22 and 23 June on Lebanese territory. 9. We all know the facts and 1 do not think it useful to dwell on them. In any case, the representative of Lebanon has given us all the needed and specific information regarding the loss of human lives and the very substantial material damage suffered by his country. The representative of Israel, for his part, attempted to justify those operations by invoking the right to legitimate self-defence; he mentioned actions carried out from Lebanese territory by Palestinian commandos, as well as actions carried out against international civil aviation, in particular on 31 May at the airport of Lod. 10. In this connexion 1 should like to establish a distinction. As 1 have just said, my Government disapproves of all acts which affect the lives or the goods of innocent civilians, and in this spirit we have not failed formally to condemn the terrible massacre at Lod. That unprecedented attack, carried out in cold blood against a defenceless crowd by individuals who have been unanimously disavowed in their own country, aroused a feeling of indignation in the world, but must such acts, however unwarranted, necessarily lead to operations of reprisals which in turn cause even greater losses and damages and are inevitably followed by other reactions? Our British colleague, Mr. Jamieson, has very well defined the nature of the Israeli operations: if they were reprisals, they were in any case condemnable; if this was the exercise of the right of self-defence, the Israeli reaction was obviously out of proportion. 11, For my part I do not believe that the operations carried out by Israel against a peaceful country, which has been plunged despite itself into a conflict which it in no way created, can facilitate a return to peace in that region. Of course, it is up to the Lebanese Covermnent to control as best it can the activities of the feduyeen based on its territory, but we all know perfectly well that that is a de facto situation which is the direct result of the occupation by Israel of territories conquered by force and due to the lack of settlement of the conflict. 13. As we see it, one of the conditions for this lasting peace is respect for the integrity and independence of Lebanon, that little country with such a wealth of human values with which-need I remind the Council-France ha always maintained close relations born of an age-old friendship. It is essential that calm return to the Israeli. Lebanese frontier as soon as possible if it is desired to avoid any new explosions of violence leading to an escalation of aggressions and retaliations which would further remove any chance for peace in the region. 14. On Friday, at this table, mention was made of a lessening of tensions in the world, whose signs we have very happily noted in the course of the last months. France deeply desires that we succeed in eliminating tensions everywhere. France wishes it particularly in regard to the countries of the Middle East. We sincerely hope that the peoples of that region of the world, which is so rich in history and civilization, will one day be able to benefit from this lessening of tensions which is a condition for the establishment of a real peace. 15. It is in that spirit that, in association with the delegations of Belgium and the United Kingdom, the French delegation has submitted the draft resolution the text of which is before the Council. This was intended as a European draft resolution. If the Italian delegation did not join in sponsoring this draft resolution, it is not, as Ambassador Vinci will tell the Council, because it did not agree with the terms of our text, but simply for constitutional reasons. 16. The text which, with my colleagues from Belgium and the United Kingdom, I submit to the Council, is an attempt to give this debate an appropriate conclusion. What we wish, first of all, is to see a final end of a.lI military operations against Lebanon and to have Israel respect previous resolutions of the Council. On the other hand, we deplore all acts of violence and all reprisal operations. We particularly condemn the recent attacks by the Israeli forces on the territory and the population of Lebanon. We insistently request that the persons kidnapped from the territory of Lebanon by the Israeli forces on 21 June be freed as soon as possible. If the negotiations undertaken to that end do not lead to a positive result, we believe that the Council should meet without delay to reexamine the question and take other measures.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Israel to whom I now give the floor. 19, Mr. TEKOAI-I (Israel): I shall comment at the appropriate time on the inequitable draft resolution submitted by the representative of France. Some of his remarks have, unfortunately, further highlighted the one-sided character of the text. I shall only make one observation. If I understood the representative of France correctly, he alleged that the terror warfare directed against Israel is due to the situation that has developed in the area since 1967. 20. As far back as 19 April 195.5 a representative of a Member State spoke of similar terror attacks carried out at the time against the civilian population of Israel. The statement was made before the Security Council, and I quote from it: 25. The following story illustrates in all its grimness the treatment meted out to prisoners by Syria. A young man, Yacov Mashiach, was abducted by ihe Syrians while he was conducting a botanic tour near the kibbutz of Mayan Baruch in Upper Galilee in 1966. His family and the Governmewof Israel appealed again and again to General Bull of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), to the Chairman of the then Syrian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission, to the International Committee of the Red Cross, to the Secretary-General, to the Ambassador of the USSR in Israel, to the Holy See and to vario’us Governments, human rights organizations and personali :ies to approach the Syrian Government on this matter and to appeal for the release of the unfortunate Mashiach. The Syrian Government, at all levels of authority, rejected these appeals and claimed that a prisoner by the name of Mashiach had never been in their hands. “These are serious and inexcusable facts which, if they continued, the Council would be bound to condemn formally. The Council cannot ignore the seriousness of both these factors-infiltration and mine laying-which are responsible for the present tension . , .” [698th meeting, para. 106]. That statement was made by the representative of France, Ambassador Hoppenot I 21, On instructions of my Government, I should like to refer to the letter submitted to the Council today by the representative of Syria [S/10720/ informing it that Syria is a party to the Lebanese complaint before the Council. This is motivated, obviously, by the detention by Israel of five Syrian officers taken prisoner in the course of a clash between a Lebanese military convoy and an Israeli patrol on 21 June. 26. On 26 June 1967 the Israeli army found in the Syrian Government offices in Runeitra, in the Golan heights, a file on the Mashiach case. The documents in the file made it clear that the young man had been abducted by a Syrian army unit which had penetrated into Israel and that he was interrogated and tortured by his captors. According to this file the Syrians knew that Mashiach was a civilian. On 17 July 1967 the Syrian authorities returned to Israel the remains of Mashiach. The Syrian authorities admitted that he had died three weeks after his abduction. 22. The Syrian representative and his supporters have tried to allege that the officers in question were at the Israeli-Lebanese frontier almost on a picnic. Though in years past I have met many Syrian army officers and broken bread with them, 1 do not know what they would normally consider to be a picnic. 23. If tb: Syrian officers in question were in fact on a picnic, i, /vps a picnic of death. The documents found on them ir .,icate clearly that they had two missions: to prepare guidelines for further terror operations from Fat&land, which they visited on their alleged picnic, and to establish military and civilian targets on Israeli territory for future attacks. It is odd to hear the representative of Syria passionately concerned about the five high-ranking officers. For several years now Israel has been detaining 45 Syrian and 60 Egyptian prisoners of war and has called repeatedly on Syria and Egypt to exchange them for 13 Israelis detained by the Syrians and by the Egyptians. These efforts 27. By no means forgotten is a more recent instance of Syria’s attitude on the detention of Israelis. On 29 August 1969, a Trans World Airlines (TWA) plane en route from Rome to Tel Aviv was hijacked to Damascus by three Arab terror agents, After passengers disembarked there, an explosive charge was set off causing serious damage to the plane. Two Israeli civilians, passengers abroad the aircraft, were imprisoned by the Syrian authorities for 98 days. The two were exchanged only on 5 December 1969 for 13 Syrian prisoners, among them two Syrian pilots. 29. Not only has Syria’s treatment of Israeli prisoners been a most flagrant crime against humanity; the plight of the Jewish community in Syria is one of the greatest tragedies of our times. An ancient and most proud community, which dates back to the period before the Arab conquest of what is today Syria, lives under conditions of cruel oppression and discrimination. Deprived of their human rights, imprisoned in ghettos, unable to leave Syria, the Jews of Damascus, Aleppo and Qamishli live in constant terror of violence, their womenfolk raped and their young men thrown into prison Simply for trying t0 escape the inferno of the country they live in. 30. On 13 June 1972 the representative of Syria submitted a special letter to the President of the Security Council [S/10698/ complaining of the Indignation that this situation has aroused in the entire world. It is not surprising that he should have done so. The enlightened world has followed with growing anxiety the fate of the helpless Jews of Syria, Governments, international organizations and public figures in all parts of the world have repeatedly expressed solicitude for their fate and determination to persist in the struggle for their liberation. Numerous letters and telegrams have been sent to the President and Government of Syria and to Syrian ambassadors, appealing for an end to the suffering of Syrian Jews. Media of information, mass meetings and conferences have called for their liberation. In France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Brazil, Argentina, the United States and Israel the fate of Syrian Jews has become one of the central elements in the universal struggle for human rights. As far back as September 1969 the former Secretary-General referred, in the introduction to his annual report to the General Assembly, to the situation of Jews in Syria and other Arab lands as follows : “I share the widely-held concern for the plight of another, smaller group of helpless persons,” he said, referring to the Jewish minorities in the Arab world. “These minorities”, he continued “would be better off elsewhere and . , , the countries in which they now live would also be better off, given the prevailing circumstances, if the departure of those who would wish to leave could be sanctioned and arranged, since their continued presence is a source of both internal and international tension”2 31. Syria has remained impervious to these expressions of concern. Syrian Jews continue to linger on at the mercy of a Government which has no regard at all for even the most elementary humaneness. This is the Government whose representative comes here to submit a complaint and to preach in the name of humanity, morality and law. 32. The gravest of all crimes of which the Syrian Government is guilty is its continued warfare against Israel and, in 2 Ibid., Twenty-fourth Session, Supplement No. IA, para. 14. 33. On 2 September 1971 President Assad of Syria stated in an interview with the Egyptian weekly Al Mussawar that the fedayeen were now situated in more than one sector of Syria and that they could operate freely from the Syrian front. He said: “Moreover, we are strengthening them and spurring them on. Sometimes we even complain of insuf. ficient activity on their part, especially in the Golan Heights, 34. On 21 April 1972 President Assad, while on a visit to Kuwait, declared: “When others talk about fer@een action these people should know that if it were not for Syria there would have been no fedayeen action.” 35. The terror organizations use the official Damascus Radio to broadcast their communiquCs and their propa. ganda. A special broadcasting station has been established for them in Dera’a. The Es Saiqa organ, El .Talia, is published in Damascus. The so-called Supreme Palestinian Military Council, which oversees the conduct of terror warfare against Israel, convenes regularly in Syria. The annual conference of the Al Fatah terror organization is also held there. The Central Executive of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the umbrella organization of the terror groups, is located in Damascus. All the individual terror organizations operating also in Lebanon and from Lebanese soil have branches in Damascus, including military commands. 36. The Syrian Government’s support of air piracy is an established fact. The imprisonment for 98 days of two Israeli civilians hijacked to Damascus on the TWA air. craft-a case already mentioned by me-and the blowing up of the aircraft at Damascus airport are still fresh in the memory of all. 37. On 27 May 1971 President Assad declared: “We have nothing to do with negotiations for a peace settlement. We have not committed ourselves, nor shall we ever do so, to restrict fedayeen activities. Syria is the lung through which fedayeen activity breathes and it will remain that. There is no other way than battle.” 38. This is the Syria that has asked to be considered an integral party to the Lebanese complaint, a Syria that has shown inhumanity to prisoners, a Syria that has become the 46. Since this is a matter of vital importance for my country and because of the very cordial relations we enjoy with both the Arabs and the Israelis, we would have wished to participate closely in the drafting of a more constructive and balanced pronouncement on a subject of such transcendental importance.

There are no other names on the list of speakers and I shall therefore call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the voting begins. 47. In the statement we made last Saturday [1649th meeting/ we clearly set forth the position of the delegation of Panama, which could not have been other than of condemnation of the recent acts of terrorism committed against Israel as well as of repudiation of the military incursions committed against Lebanon. 40, Mr. CARASALES (Argentina) (interpretation porn Spanish): The delegation of Argentina stated its general views on Saturday f1649th meeting] on the problem which the Security Council is considering and we said that we would consider any draft resolutions in the light of those views, 48. We wish every situation of violence in the Middle East to be censured with equal emphasis. Since the draft resolution contained in document S/10722 lends greater weight to the condemnation of one aspect of violence than to another, my delegation has received instructions to abstain in the voting. 41. In document S/10722 we now have before us a draft resolution sponsored by Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, which will be voted upon shortly. My delegation wishes to state that it will vote in favour of this draft resolution since it feels that there are legal principles at stake which are beyond challenge. At the same time we wish to place on record that the wording of several parts of the draft resolution is not entirely satisfactory to my delegation. 49. Mr, ABDULLA (Sudan): I shall not dweIl at length on this draft resolution. I would only set forth certain objections that my delegation has to it. 50. The fast relates to the preamble, of which the sixth paragraph reads: “Deploring the tragic loss of life resulting from all acts of violence and retaliation”. My delegation’s policy is to condemn all sorts of violence, but we think that that paragraph is too vague. We would have wanted it to be very specific and very definite on the act of aggression and violence which was committed between 21 and 23 June by Israel against Lebanon. We should have very much liked the Council to deplore that. Our apprehension is that this paragraph might be interpreted in such a way as to spoil the specific reference to aggression to which I have referred. 42. Operative paragraph 2, for example, can certainly be improved upon. As regards paragraph 3, while it deserves our support because of its content, it could, I think, also have expressly covered the situation of the prisoners of war who are now in the power of the parties to the conflict. It would have been desirable to make an appeal for the prompt exchange of these prisoners. My delegation, for humanitarian reasons, expresses its support for the negotiations that are now taking place for that purpose. At any rate, that is the way we understand the words “as an immediate consequence” which appear at the beginning of paragraph 3, , 51. I should also like to commbnt on any references to the liberation movement of the Palestinians or any interpretations of such references. We think that this is a true liberation movement, and that the words “acts of violence” that might have been used in some of the discussion do not 43. Having said that and because the draft resolution contains many elements which my delegation considers important, we shall vote in favour of it, in the hope that episodes such as those that have occurred recently will not be repeated and that the way will thereby be prepared for a just and lasting peace in the region. apply. We believe it is a movement of liberation. Indeed it has been accepted as such by a resolution adopted by a Committee of the General Assembly at its last session, That is why we do not like the formulation of this particular paragraph. 44, Mr. BUSH (United States of America): I indicated at the 1649th meeting on 24 June that my delegation would 53. I should like to make one more point. The release of the Syrian officers should not be subjected to any sort of delay or any sort of bargaining. This is a straightforward question of international law, which does not permit people to be kidnapped and abducted. We should therefore have liked to see the Council issue a straightforward order to Israel for the immediate and unconditional release of these abducted people.

In conformity with my delegation’s statement to the Council last Saturday [1649th meetingJ, we would have favoured a draft resolution on this very important problem which clearly condemned Israel and at the same time called upon Israel to release forthwith the Syrian officers who were abducted in Lebanese territory. But we see that the present draft resolution (S/10722/ does not reflect our concern on this matter; it does not condemn Israel, as we would have wished it to do, and as did three previous resolutions 262 (1968), 270 (1969) and 280 (1970). It associates the very timid condemnation contained in operative paragraph 2 with the deploring of acts of violence. My delegation condemns all acts of violence, but it would have preferred to see this paragraph divided in the following manner : a paragraph 2 reading ‘%)eplores all acts of Violence:’ and then a paragraph 3 reading: “Condemns the repeated attacks of Israeli forces . . .“. As far as the release of the abducted officers is concerned, the Somali delegation wishes to place on record its great surprise that this supreme organ of the United Nations should express a “desire”. It is true that before the word “desire” the word “strong” appears-“strong desire”. Nevertheless, the Security Council would now be expressing a “desne” that Israel take steps to release the abducted officers. 55. Like the delegation of Panama, we were not consulted in the drafting of this important draft resolution. My delegation would have preferred to move formal amendments to it, but because of the urgency, because of the emergency character of these meetings of the Security Council, and because the Somali delegation has ascertained that no matter how bad the draft resolution is, it has met-because there is no alternative-with the approval of some of the parties concerned, my delegation will abstain from moving such amendments. 56. Finally, in the present operative paragraph 4 it is stated that if so-called “steps do not result In the release of the abducted personnel” -and I do not see that any steps have been taken-“the Council will reconvene . . , to consider further action”. That implies that some action has been taken. The Somali delegation does not regard this expres. sion of a “strong desire” as action taken by the Security Council to compel Israel to refrain from its unlawful acts, 59. In the opinion of the Chinese delegation, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is a premeditated and planned act OF aggression, and it is only logical that it should be condemned; whereas it is perfectly just for the Palestinian and other Arab peoples to take up amls to resist aggression and defend their national rights, they must be given support. Both the sixth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 2 contain the wording, “deploring all acts of violence”. 60. Such a wording could be interpreted as making ID distinction between the right and the wrong or between the aggressors and the victims of aggression. The Chinese delegation cannot agree to such an ambiguous wording. The Chinese delegation states that it has serious reservations in regard to such a wording. 61. In operative paragraph 3, Israel should be asked tr, release the abducted Syrian and Lebanese personnel im. mediately and unconditionally. The wording in the draft resolution is not clear enough, about which the Chinese delegation also has reservations. 62. The Chinese delegation reiterates that the Chinese Governmerit and people will, as always, firmly support the Lebanese, Palestinian and other Arab peoples in their just struggle against aggression. We firmly believe that, relying on the united struggle of the Arab peoples and with the support of all the justice-upholding countries and peoples of the world, they will surely win final victory in their struggle. 63. With the above statement and reservations, the Chinese delegation is prepared to vote in favour of the draft resolution.

In evaluating the results of the discussion of the new aggressive act, or rather the acts of aggression, committed by Israel against Lebanon, the Soviet delegation is guided by the opinions which it expressed in its statement [164&h nzeetitzgj during the discussion al this question. 65. The piratical air raids on defenceless inhabited localities in Lebanon have already taken dozens of human lives. 7 1. We cannot fail to remark on the fact that during he debate certain representatives said that their Governments strorU$ly SUpplart the territorial integrity of Lebanon, That is a good and responsible statement to make; it is an iml)Qrtant commitment. As the Soviet representative, I fully associate myself with that statement. But why mention only the territorial integrity of Lebanon? Why was this idea not pursued further and why was it not stated CQually firmly that SUCh (;overnments are in favour of the territorial integrity of Egypt, Syria and Jordan? This is the r~~~~t and the essence of the problem of achieving a Middle East sctflcmrnt. 72. “1’11~ key issue in eliminating the aftermath of the jVaeli ;lygrCSSion is the questian of tjlc seizure and plunder ot other people’s land by Israel. As long as Israel, which has st~lerl other PCOP~C’S land, does not return it to its rightful irwncrs, it will be difficult to expect peace, calm and stability in the Middle East. This is the root of the evil and the css~nc~ of the Middle East problem. Let Israel return the stolen land to its rightful Arab owners, Then the aftermat of the lsraeli aggression will be eliminated, justice will triurnpj~, a peaceful situation will be restored and vi4uncu will cease. This is the key to the solution of the pr0hlrm. 73. Thrrsc who are trying to conceal and gloss over the point and essence of the Israeli aggression by various means arc in fact playing into the hands of Israel and are not promoting a political settlement of the Middle East prublcm. ?4. There is one more fact to which I wish to draw attrntitrn. The Israeli representative here, summing up the results of’ the discussion, complained that seven members of the Security Council do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Why is this? It is naturally because of Israel’s a cssive policy, because of Israel’s disregard for the c1cmcntar-y rules of international law, for the decisions of the United Nations, for the resolutions of the Security (;‘otmcil and of the General Assembly which condemn Israel for awes&n and call for a peaceful political settlement. The point is not, however, the existence or otherwise of diplomatic relations. States may live as Members of the llnited Nations in accordance with the Charter without tjaving diplomatic relations with each other. The Charter specifically says that we must live “as good neighbours”. “~‘ltk most important principle of the Charter is being systutnaticalIy vjojated by Israel. Israel does not abide by tjris prIrlciple, it violates this principle; it pursues a systematic policy of aggression against its neighbours. This ia the rmt of the evil, This is why Israel must accede to the principal demand made of it: it must withdraw from other pople’s land and return what has been stolen to. the riklltful owners, SO that peace can be restored in the Mlddle E;~SL 70- We of course dcpl64rc I~ss ttf’ life:, wjicthcr it is the result of extremist tcrrrbrisrn \lr trf il rrssir,n, hlrt frofii tllC Point of view of rcsponsibilitv we c;mnnt cqnate an act rjf 76. The Israeli representative has depicted to us here the Israeli paradise in Gaza. We know what kind of paradise is created by invaders and occupiers. Hitler too promised Europe a “new order”, the Hitlerite paradise. But what kind of paradise was that ? We experienced this paradise under the boots of the SS officers on our backs during Hitler’s occupation of our Russian territory. The Yugoslavs experienced it, as did the French, the Belgians and many other European peoples. They know what kind of paradise in occupied land is provided by the occupiers. NO, the peoples of Europe and the peoples of the Soviet Union did not resign themselves to Hitler’s paradise. And everyone knows how this ended for the occupiers. This is why it is futile and naive to expect the Arab peoples to resign themselves to the Israeli occupation. The sooner the Israeli invaders understand this, the better it will be for them, for their neighbours, for the cause of pace in the Middle East and for international peace as a whole. 77. The reasoning of the Israeli representative about successes in Gaza can be compared with the situation of a gangster who has stolen money from a bank and invested it in more beneficial undertakings and used it more successfully. But he would still be a gangster and, under United States law, could be sentenced to imprisonment for a year or two years or five years, even if he uses the stolen money in a more beneficial and successful way than its previous owner. For this reason, it would be better for the Israeli representative not to use arguments of this kind here. 78. The Soviet delegation strongly urges that the draft resolution be more forceful, that the aggressor be condemned more decisively and that there be no analogy or comparison between an official aggressor, who commits planned and premeditated aggression which is carred out by official armed forces, and other acts of violence, We believe that the inclusion in this context, together with a condemnation of the aggressor, of a reference to all acts of violence is an attempt to camouflage the aggression and to absolve from responsibility those who should answer for the aggression, not before a national court-as in Israel in the case of the young terrorist who committed the terrorist act-but before an international court and in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, The United Nations-both the General Assembly and the Security Council-has already repeatedly condemned Israel as an 79. I have one more comment on the draft resolution, The Soviet Union delegation feels that an amendment should be made to paragraph 3 concerning the release of the Syrian and Lebanese military personnel captured by Israeli troops. We fully agree with the representatives of the Sudan and Somalia that the military personnel should be released immediately. The members of the Security Council have already discussed this even before the official meetings of the Council. Consultations were held among all 15 members of the Council and it was agreed by an overwhelming majority, with certain remarks by a single member, that the President of the Council should summon Mr. Tekoah and state that the prevailing opinion of the Council is that Be Syrian and Lebanese soldiers should be released inune. diately. Not whenever possible, but immediately; and immediately means within two or three days, The Soviet Union delegation would have preferred the draft resolution to set a time-limit, so that the Syrian and Lebanese soldiers seized illegally and in a brigandish and thievish manner on alien Lebanese territory could be returned immediately, without any conditions, without any reservations and without any counter-claims, since there are no grounds for any. 80. The Soviet Union delegation would therefore have preferred the draft resolution to be strengthened in this way, But if the Arab delegations have no objection to that draft, the Soviet delegation will not oppose its adoption.

Since no other representative wishes to speak at this time, I take it that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote. 82. In accordance with rule 32 of the provisional rulesof procedure, the Council will vote first on the draft resolu. tion sponsored by the delegations of Belgium, France and the United Kingdom [S/l0 722/. A vote NUS taken by show of hands. Irz favour: Argentina, Belgium, China, France, Guinea, India, Italy, Japan, Somalia, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. A gainst: None. Abstaining: Panama, United States of America. The draft resolution was adopted by 13 votes to nom. with 2 abstentions, 3

Another draft resolution has been submitted to the Council in this connexion by the United States of America [S/10723/. In view of the adoption by the Council just now of the draft resolution contained in document S/10722, and in accordance with established 3 See resolution 316 (1972). 85. Mr, BUSH (United States of America): In my statement on Saturday [16#9th meeting], I described the position of my delegation on the question of a Security Council resolution on this issue. I specified certain criteria by which the United States would test any draft resolution placed before us. Since then a number of delegations have worked exceedingly hard during long hours to reach agreement on the resolution we have just voted upon. Unfortunately, however, that resolution did not meet the requirements which I discussed on Saturday. 91. Mr. VAN USSEL (Belgium) finterpretution from French): In co-sponsoring the draft resolution which has just been adopted, Belgium sought, in association with France and the United Kingdom, and with the support of Italy, to demonstrate the active interest which Western Europe and, particularly, the member countries of the enlarged community have in the Middle East question. We appreciate the constitutional reasons which prevented Italy from becoming a co-sponsor, but which have by no means detracted from the deeply-held conviction which it has just expressed by voting in favour of the resolution. The numerous visits and actions undertaken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium, M. Pierre Harmel, in recent days, in order to promote the cause of peace, are a reflection of the preoccupation of my country in the face of the ever-explosive situation in this part of the world, with which Europe has so many affinities. 86, It will be recalled that our delegation felt that a resolution, to be acceptable, must be fair, that it must be balanced, that it must be concerned with terrorist attacks, as well as with the Israeli attacks, that it must show concern for the casualties on both sides of the border and, most importantly, that it must at least carry the hope of moving this area closer to peace. We believed also that if the repatriation of all armed force prisoners could be effected this would have removed an inhibition to progress in this area and would also, of course, have had humanitarian benefits, 87. The resolution that was just voted upon did not meet what we strongly believed are the needs of the situation and my delegation was obliged to abstain. 92. The resolution which has been adopted by the Council is the result of a compromise, which means that it does not always reflect all the ideas and desiderata which its sponsors would have liked to have seen included in it. In other words, this resolution is a joint attempt to win as large a majority as possible on action on the part of the Council in connexion with the serious incidents and acts of violence which have been going on for more than a month now, both in Israel and in Lebanon. 88. Let me simply add that our draft resolution [S/10723/ was no attempt to camouflage. It attempts to express condemnation of the moves in Lebanon, but it also rises above the rather ominous silence which at times surrounds the assaults on Israel, the assaults against innocent life in that country. I have in mind one such assault that only recently claimed 16 American lives, in rather senseless cold-blooded slaughter. We worry about the deaths at Hasbayya. We worry, too, about those who died at Lad airport, or those who have died along the Israeli side of the Israeli-Lebanese border. We are concerned about those things. 93. As my delegation sees it, in effect all the operative paragraphs need to be followed up, Paragraphs 1 and 2 request Israel to refrain in the future from resorting to military interventions against Lebanon, as these are contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter. If the latter in Article 51 has enshrined the natural right of self-defence, at the same time it has limited its application to the single case of armed aggression. But the incidents of 20 June in Israeli territory which provoked the reprisals on the following days, could not be described as an act of aggression on the part of Lebanon, a country whose noble peaceful traditions are known to all. However, paragraph 2 implies, since it profoundly deplores all acts of violence, that the Government of Lebanon should take all necessary steps to contain and effectively control the activities of Palestinian fighters and thus avoid acts of sabotage and ambush against Israeli targets being organized from its territory.

My delegation co-sponsored and has voted for the draft resolution we have just adopted because we consider that it fairly reflects the situation which precipitated this series of meetings and strikes an appropriate balance, as indeed I attempted to do in my intervention on Saturday. The resolution makes clear the view of the Council that the repeated attacks of Israeli forces on Lebanese territory and population warrant the condemnation of the Council. We have no doubt about that. The resolution also profoundly deplores all acts of violence, wherever they are committed and whoever commits them. Equally, we have no doubt about that. But it is right that the Council should not hesitate to censure when in its view a particular act or series of acts warrant that course, and as I made clear in my earlier statement, my 95. Regarding paragraphs 3 and 4 of the resolution we have just adopted, my delegation also construes these as requiring a twofold series of steps. As I stated in my intervention last Saturday /1649th meeting], the Belgian Government regards the requests of Syria and Lebanon that the officers and gendarmes captured on 21 June in the interior of Lebanese territory be released as a legitimate request to which the Israeli Government should accede. At the same time, we remain deeply convinced that the subsequent reciprocal exchange of prisoners of war constitutes a factor which would very likely reduce considerably the tension between all the belligerent countries in the Middle East, It is in this balanced spirit that we interpret the text of paragraph 3. Although it is true that the release of the Lebanese and Syrian military personnel should be immediate, it is none the less true that it should lead up to a general exchange of prisoners between the countries involved in the Middle East conflict, an exchange which we ardently desire. 96. Once again my Government would express the sincere hope that the matter of the Middle East might be approached and considered by the Security Council in terms of peace and no longer in terms of preventing war. Since 1968 the Council has adopted numerous resolutions as a result of armed military incidents or interventions. Only a few days ago, furthermore, it took a unanimous decision [see S/X0705] condemning air piracy and acts of illicit interference in civil aviation. The public opinion and the Government of my country were horror-struck at the indescribable massacre which bathed in blood the Lod airport on 30 May last, In the same way, we condemned the grave events which occured last week in Lebanon, during which 90 were killed and approximately 100 wounded. 97. This means that more than ever my country urges the Security Council and the parties involved to do everything they can to bring about a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East. We have already agreed on the main guidelines for such a settlement, by adopting resolution 242 (1967). Furthermore, we have also supported the initiatives and attempts made by Ambassador Jarring. We hope that, with the help of imagination and the desire to succeed, efforts will be undertaken to draw up an over-all agreement in the Middle East, 99. Anyhow I feel in duty bound to place on record the views of the Italian delegation as they can easily be perceived in the general statement I made at our meeting on Saturday night, which is available to all members of the Council as it is reproduced in the record of the 1649th meeting. I indicated then that our preference would go to a draft resolution which would produce as a first result the compliance of the parties. To achieve such a result we believe that, although we cannot condone in any way any sort of reprisals or retaliations, which are inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations, it is not reasonable or very realistic to ignore completely welfknown facts which have produced the military reactions of the Israeli forces. 100. It is equally unrealistic, in our view, to ignore totally the unfavourable psychological climate created by the criminal action perpetrated at Lad airport which has aroused the indignation of world opinion and produced the general strike of the pilots of most of the international civil airlines. We cannot fail to deplore strongly such senseless murderous acts against defenceless civilian persons which spread death and tragedy to so many families and peoples. But at the same time we cannot accept any connexion with ide-scale military operations which have followed or Jstification for those operations. We sincereIy hope ..lal responsible Governments will do their utmost in asserting their legitimate authority and in checking those who plan similar acts wherever they prepare and attempt to carry out terrorist attacks or unlawful deeds. 101. In the same vein we would have liked some changes in paragraph 4 which, as it stands, appears to US to be redundant since it is in part a repetition of the previous paragraph and could have been shortened, keeping the essentials, namely, the provision that we would convene again if necessary to consider further action. 102. We sincerely hope, however, that the resolution will produce the desired results, among which-besides the 103. We fervently hope that the spirit of the resolution will be properly understood by all the parties concerned, to which I address on behalf of my delegatibn a renewed appeal to make all possible efforts to stop the irrational spiral of violence that seems about to engulf the Middle East again.

After having listened to the speakers who have explained their votes, I should like to add a few words. 105. My delegation feels that the scope of this resolution which we have just adopted is limited to its subject-matter, namely, the attacks perpetrated last week against Lebanon, and when we express the strong desire that appropriate steps will lead, as an immediate consequence, to the release in the shortest possible time of Syrian and Lebanese personnel abducted by Israeli armed forces on 21 June on Lebanese territory, our only concern is to remedy without delay the specific situation thus created. 111. The Yugoslav Government, the Government of a country born anew through a national liberation war, would never accept anything that could mean taking away any people’s right to fight for its just cause. 112. Speaking now in my capacity as PRESIDENT, I call on the next speaker on my list, the representative of Israel, in exercise of the right of reply. 106. It goes without saying, however, that, from a strictly humanitarian point of view, my government cannot but rejoice at any development which would make it possible, within an appropriate framework and following mutually accepted procedures, to proceed to an exchange of persons detained in any of the countries of the region. This would doubtless be an important contribution towards the calming of minds.

Perhaps the oddest statements made in the Council have been those of the representative of India. I refrained from answering him last time. He has compelled me to reply to his statement today, and I shall do that by a simple suggestion: that he compare his statements in this debate with those made by him and by his Foreign Minister in the Security Council and in the General Assembly only several months ago. When the Indian Government decides which of the two sets of pronouncements reflects India’s views on international relations, on international peace and security, when that decision is taken, it will be possible to address oneself to the views of the representative of India with the seriousness which they could normally command.

We voted for the resolution which has just been adopted and had been so diligently prepared after exten&e negotiations and so ably piloted by the representative of France on behalf of the three delegations. We voted for it because this resolution meets generally the criteria I set down on Saturday on behalf of the Indian delegation. However, we should make it clear that the language of paragraph 2 could not be interpreted as equating any kind of illegal action with the action of those who assert their legitimate rights. Our vote on this paragraph simply indicates that we share the common concern for human misery and suffering such as that at Lad airport as a result of violence, without in any manner diluting the condemnation which the Council has expressed. 114. The following definition of aggression has been officially submitted to the United Nations: “1. In an international conflict that State shall be declared the attacker which first commits one of the following acts: 108. Secondly, we must earnestly hope that the resolution will be fully implemented so that the present difficulties can be overcome. Such implementation will help the renewal of the Jarring mission for the application of resolution 242 (1967), which alone can contribute effectively towards a permanent solution of the problem of West Asia. The current developments reflect only too well our failure to make worthwhile progress towards a comprehensi* political settlement. “ . * , “(f) Support of armed bands organized in its own territory which invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, on being requested by the invaded State, to take in its own territory any action within its power to deny such ban& any aid or protection. That is not an Israeli definition of aggression; that is a Soviet definition, similar to the provision contained in the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security, initiated originally by the Soviet delegation. 115. It is known that the Soviet representative has been brought up in an atmosphere of, and is used in his country to having, one law for all Soviet citizens and another for Jews of the Soviet Union, Now, Soviet Jews, downtrodden and discriminated against as they are, are resisting with tenacity and courage this denial of human rights. . .

Point of order.

I call on the representative of the Soviet Union, who wishes to speak on a point of order.

Mr. President, I protest at the fact that the Israeli representative, with his usual malicious anti-Sovietism, is raising an internal question concerning the Soviet Union-the so-called Jewish question in the Soviet Union. No such problem has existed, exists or will exist. It was invented by the Israeli aggressors in order to cover up their aggressive actions against the Arab world and to turn the attention of the world community towards the Soviet Union for the purpose of disseminating anti-Sovietism. Please explain to the representative of Israel that his reference to this matter here in his statement, when he is speaking in the role of the condemned person, is inappropriate to say the least.

The representative of Israel may proceed with his statement,

I did not interrupt the Soviet representative when he made his statement, but, in view of his last remarks, I should like to protest against the abuse which he directed against the person of the Prime Minister of Israel, a lady, Mrs. Meir. 121. The representative of the USSR should know by now that in international relations Israel will not agree-as the Jews of the Soviet Union do not-that there should be one law for the Soviet Union and other States, and a different law for Israel. 122. On 21 May 1948, the representative of the USSR ln the Security Council, at present the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, Mr. Andrei Gromyko, declared: “The USSR delegation cannot but express surprise at the position adopted by the Arab States in the Palestine question, and particularly at the fact that those States-or 124. History cannot be changed, Ambassador Malik, and historical facts cannot be erased. We all know that this does sometimes happen in the Soviet representative’s country, especially with the publication of each new edition af the Soviet Encyclopaedia, but this cannot and will not happen in the world at large. 125. The representative of the Soviet Union again spoke of Israel’s alleged isolation. I appreciate his interest in Israel’s feelings about its international situation, but, as 1 have already pointed out, there is no isolation in a jusr cause, even if it is the cause of a minority, the cause of a small people. Israel and the Jewish people are not irolatcj when history, justice and law are on their side. What is &e significance of one-sided political resolutions adopted hen: or elsewhere when history and justice and law are on Israel’s side? 126. And finally, if there is a criterion of isolation, or. on the contrary, of sympathy and friendship and understand. ing, that is most important and most valid in this age of I!X awakening of peoples-and the Soviet representative should be conscious of that-it is the attitude of the peoples to .a particular State, to a particular country, to a particubr people. And if the representative of the USSR has an)- doubt regarding my statement, let him suggest to his Government that it hold a free, unfettered referendum among the peoples of the Soviet Union on how they f&I towards Israel and Israel’s struggle to vindicate its ri&rs, The Government and people of Israel wilI accept the resuIts of such a free, unfettered referendum as an indication ui whether Israel is isolated, even from and in the eyes of&e people of his own country-not to speak of other nation and other countries-or whether it has the friendship a& understanding of the Soviet peoples when they can express themselves freely. 127. The text adopted by the Council is inequitable anlf immoral. In a grave situation brought about by the continuation of terror warfare against Israel from Lebanex territory, the resolution ignores the murderous attacks on innocent civilians, the assaults on villages and towns, the crimes of air piracy perpetrated by Arab terror organ&- tions. Instead of condemning those dastardly attacks, it ~4s upon measures Israel has been compelled to take as a km resort to defend itself and to protect its territory and ifs people. The heinous Lo> massacre is disregarded as if it h~ii never happened; the killing and wounding of defenc&~ civilian travellers on highways, the laying of mines on roe& 133. Through the ages of its millenial history the Jewish people has been bled by foe and tyrant, by fanatic and vandal, but even as it bled it remained alive and vibrant and creative. So shall it be for all time.

I call upon the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

I wish first of all to confirm the stand of the Syrian Government regarding the five Syrian officers and Lebanese officers and security personnel who are now detained in Israel. The manner in which these officers were abducted-an abduction recognized by the Council’s resolution voted upon today-is, as I have already had occasion to state, a grave violation of international law. If no action were taken by the Council this would constitute an erosion of international law and morality and would undoubtedly lead in the ultimate situation to inhuman laws, to the law of the jungle. Israel had before its birth taken the law of the jungle as its basic principle. It continues to do so. The Security Council, by asking Israel today to release the five Syrian officers, as also the Lebanese officers and security personnel of Lebanon, has done the minimum that couId be done in such circumstances. Otherwise a very grave erosion of international law would have taken place. 129. On the question of prisoners of war, I should like to reiterate that the Government of Israel desires to see the speedy repatriation of all prisoners. Negotiations are already under way for the release of all prisoners of war by all parties. 130. The resolution might have grave repercussions on the Middle East situation. The Arab terror organizations might find comfort in it and feel encouraged to persist in their attacks. The Lebanese Government might seize upon it as another pretext for evading its international obligation to suppress the terror operations. Members of the Security Council will undoubtedly wish to impress upon their Governments the implications inherent in their support for a resolution of this kind. Indeed, in the past the Government of Lebanon has utilized one-sided resolutions and such injudicious action as the posting of United Nations observers to try to justify its refusal to put an end to attacks against Israel from Lebanese territory. 136. The release of these officers is a matter of immediate priority. It is unconditional. It should take place as quickly as possible, otherwise the Security Council will be called upon again to look into this matter. 13 1, My delegation would like to stress that one-sided resolutions such as the one adopted today may reflect the political views of their supporters on a specific issue at a particular time. However, such resolutions do not and cannot modify or affect the basic principles and provisions of the United Nations Charter or the tenets of international law. Under these precepts Lebanon is in duty bound to prevent the use of its territory as a base for acts of murder, terror and violence against the State and people of Israel. Israel does not and will not release the Government of Lebanon from this obligation. Israel has insisted in the past, and will do so in the future, that Lebanon abide by its obligations and will hold the Government of Lebanon responsible if it fails to do so. In view of the seriousness of the threats to peace and security resulting from Lebanon’s present policy, Israel hopes that the Government of Lebanon will give weight to the unalterable reality in the area-Israel’s determination to defend itself and to protect the lives of its citizens-rather than to ill-conceived semantic formulations arrived at here on the East River. 137. I listened very carefully and intently to the diatribe of Mr. Tekoah concerning Syria and Syria’s attitude. He spoke a great deal about law, a thing which has become usual to anyone who has listened to Mr. Tekoah. Indeed, if we took a recording of any previous session of the Security Council we would hear the same words being repeated, the same ideas, the same thoughts, Ehe same conclusionsalways a man practising lawlessness and preaching law. 138. Now, in order to prove my point I shall not use my own words but shall read from an article published in the French newspaper Le Monde on 23 June 3 972 concerning the attack on Hasbayya for which Lebanon has complained to the Security Council, together with the abduction of officers. This is what the article says: “ ‘An apocalyptic vision’-this is the first sentence our correspondent in Lebanon cabled us, that was spoken by an archaeologist priest who found himself in a small restaurant in the village of Hasbayya at a time when the Israeli bombardment occured. He went on: ‘I wanted to help a woman who had been seriously wounded in the leg and whose five-year-old daughter tried to comfort her. I 132. The Government of Israel will stand firm on the rights under the Charter of the United Nations and International law to ensure that the people of Israel do live In peace and security. It is in peace that the people of Israel . . . “ . . . The village is almost totally destroyed. 1 saw five cars full of people burning after the passage of Israeli aircraft. They dropped their bombs everywhere. The raid lasted two hours. The inhabitants tried to find shelter in caves and dugouts while the Israeli forces established on the Golan Heights participated in pillaging. / * . . “ . I . Fields of wheat and crops were burnt all around Hasbayya after the explosion of incendiary bombs. . . The barracks, the Druse mosque, the nursery school were all hit. People were imprisoned under the ruins of houses. The village seemed to have been hit by an earthquake.“6 139. That is a description of what Israel understands by justice. I think the best commentary on this article, written by two correspondents, one French and one American, would be the very Biblical verse which Mr. Tekoah has just quoted. I wish I knew it. But I know another verse from the Bible : , “Woe to him who builds his house on blood and his city on iniquity.” 140. I shall not indulge in answering all the base accusations which Mr. Tekoah has levelled against my country, but I should like to take up just a few points in order to make the truth clear. We are now living the results of the 1967 war. I wish Mr. Tekoah, for instance, had replied not by going back to 1947 or 1948 but by commenting on the document which I placed in the hands of members of the Council at the 1649th meeting on Saturday and which indicated the settlements that had been established in all the occupied areas after 1967 in contravention of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, of all the resolutions of the Security Council and of the Charter of the United Nations; I wish he had commented on the statements and the decisions taken by the twentyeighth Zionist Congress to the effect that they were going to build these settlements, to expel the Arabs, to keep the Arabs out of their own territories. But the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is very clear; it states: “The occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials 6 Quoted in French by the speaker. 142. Mr. Tekoah is inhuman. He has been dehumanised ?-A a neurotic doctrine called “Zionism”. Until and unl h realizes that, no dramatic expositions, no insults level]& .F” India, the Soviet Union or Syria, no beautifi words, no attempts at misleading people will anybody. He is in the situation described by Sartre: “No Exit”. He has proved his inhumanity continues not only to prove it but also to make a d~rrxpe of savagery, of barbarism, of inhumanity, of killing. 143. What I read out about the destruction of the of Hasbayya-the action about which my Lebanr league is complaining-is typical of what has happen@+?! TV every occupied area. What about the statement I quot& :I: Saturday from Mr. Dayan himself wherein he said 8haa: there is no Israeli village which has not been built K+G a- Arab village? I wish he would reply to that. I w& %r would come to his senses and reply to the facts that wg a~! bringing here to the Council. Let him tell us thal the? .~YS not true. On the contrary, he says: “Under the guise of &m of rights, of justice, we shall go on doing this.” Tha i:: actually an interesting thing. We are listening to a I:??:,: Fuehrer. We all know how the great Fuehrer ended: d 3~:: hell, in a bunker. 144. Mr. Tekoah spoke of two definitions or norm* ,:f’ aggression: support of armed bands, encouragemm? :i indirect aggression. I am sorry to tax the Council”% PI[x‘~~J but I must once more remind Mr. Tekoah of the hisfcn -I the founding of his State. I read out OII bt-&+%> quotations showing how the Haganah had ~5~~‘~~~~~~ import-export agencies in Damascus, Beirut and ~~~~~ among the Jewish communities in order to dwck S: people. But 1 will read out something else from the wx*s book: The Hagamh: “Our men took upon themselves the twofold magi- :i fighting in the ranks of the British Army, at whl@‘wg*’ 7 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973, Mi& $4 “The falsification of passports and uniforms was the task of a group of specialists, men and women. Kol Israel, the clandestine broadcasting station of the Haganah, had a special code to communicate with their cells extending from North Africa to Iran.” 148. I could refer the Council also to the reports of Amnesty International, the reports of August and September 1971 of the International Red Cross, the reports about the occupied areas. I could refer the Council to two or three reports by the Commission on Human Rights and a committee of the General Assembly. They confirmed the torture, the mass imprisonment of people. Four thousand Arabs are rotting in Israeli gaols right now, and the testimony to that is to be found in all these international documents. And Mr. Tekoah comes to preach to us about law and morality, as though it is a slap in the face. 145. Here, I pause to remind the Council that he spoke about the clandestine radio station broadcasting for the resistance fighters to the Israeli occupation. But then there was no occupation. As to expansion, here is what the same book says: “ * , . the regular army of Israel”-which was the Haganah-“availed itself of the May 22, 1948, cease-fire, and of the truce directives of August 19, 1948, to complete two operations: Operation Balak-Hebrew for bird-and operation Dustbowl, ending on October 21, 1948. In September 1948, the United Nations Mediator was assassinated. , , The first operation consisted of smuggling three B-17 bombers from the United States and other planes through South America and Europe, which were used to bomb Cairo and Damascus in the summer of that eventful year.” 149. Then, is it a mere coincidence that he has chosen to speak about the Jews in Syria? In 1945, in 1946, according to documents of the State Department, the Zionist organizations in the United States were objecting that the Government of Syria does not permit Jews to go and migrate to Syria. Now they want them out of Syria, because this little Fuehrer is a law-maker. One day he wants them in; the other day he wants them out. And we have to submit to his will. And here is the man who wants to teach us what aggression is and what are the norms of aggression. In that same vein, since we are in the Security Council let us go to the records of the Council between 1951 and 1963. There are four condemnations, including the voice of the United States in the Council, for attacks, sneak attacks, by Israeli armed forces against Syria through the demilitarized zone. I repeat, four condemnations. 150. Mr. Tekoah mentioned my letter of 13 June to the President of the Security Council /S/10698] about the Jews in Syria. But he forgot that I had annexed four articles to that letter. They are the following: an article from 27ze New York Times of 4 February 1972; 97he.z les Juifs de Damas” by Robert Verdussen in La Libre Belgique of 27 December 1971; “How do Jews Fare in Syria? ” by John Cooley in The Christian Science Monitor of 27 November 1971; “Les Juifi de Damas” by Pierre Demeron in La Tribune des Nations of 7 May 1971. 144. Does he mention that? Can he reply to that? Certainly not. In each of those attacks no fewer than 50 soldiers, 100 sometimes, were either killed or taken prisoner, and Syria never knew about them. There were the established cases of young men who were buried alive on the Golan Heights, in the West Bank, in Gaza, in Sinai. These are facts of history and one day they will jump into the face of Mr. Tekoab and say to him “What have you done? ” They will ask him the question: “Are you really your brother’s keeper, as you are claiming to be? ” He will have no answer because he will be in his bunker, the little Fuehrer. 151. I included all those articles because they were written by Americans and by Belgians; we know that none of the Americans, the Belgians and the French are against the Jews. Everybody is for right, for justice, for humanity. These correspondents went to Syria and saw for themselves. Let me read some paragraphs: “The Jewish Community of Damascus is administered by a seven-member community council presided over by Selim Totah, who lives in one of those old, elegant Damascus villas with a patio and courtyards graced with fountains and orange trees, of which there are still so many in the Syrian capital. Among the members of the Council are Ibrahim Hamra, a young rabbi with a melancholy smile, who is head of the Ben Maimoun School; several dry goods merchants, a doctor, Dr. Nessim Hasbani, and a tailor. The Community Council runs the clinic on Amin St., a welfare programme, and, most notably, the two schools, which are community schools but, like all Syrian schools since the nationalization of education in 1967, teach the official curriculum.” 147. I shall not refer to anything except United Nations documents about war crimes and the crimes against humanity; they are defined by the Niirnberg Tribunal, and in 1950 by a resolution of the General Assembly [see resolution 488 (V)/. I refer the Council to the reports submitted by the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, from 1967 until the twenty-sixth session of the General Assembly, where we find the following: that schools have been destroyed, that hospitals have been destroyed, that United Nations personnel have been killed There is another paragraph: “ ‘Of the more than 6 million Syrians, 100,000 are refugees from the Golan Heights and 250,000 are Palestine refugees. Children died of cold during the winter of 1970 at the Barze Camp. But the only ones the West had been concerned about are the 4,000 Jews who, as you see, live as peacefully as possible! ’ The speaker was indignant.” Then the article goes on to describe these various schools and institutions, and one of the largest of these two schools, Maimonides-Musah Ben Maimoun, if he knows what I mean-is actually paid for by the Syrian Jewish community in the United States who visited me and thanked me for the facilities that the Syrian Government is giving for their schools in Damascus. 152. I could go on and on, but there is one point on which I should like to dwell a little. Mr. Tekoah spoke about our non-co-operation with Ambassador Jarring, but he did not say anything about the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte. We did not assassinate Jarring. In fact we believe that Jarring is a very distinguished Ambassador who is carrying out a very noble mission, and he is Ambassador to Moscow. Ambassador Jarring, both during his mission and previously has been to many Arab countries-including Egypt and Lebanon-but he -was not assassinated. The Security Council did not adopt two resolutions on the assassination of this peace mediator. Mr. Tekoah, give us a reply about the assassins of Count Folke Bemadotte who became members of the Israeli Knesset after an amnesty was granted them by the Israeli Government. Is this the justice that Mr. Tekoah is preaching to the Security Council and to the international community? 153. During the six-day war the Security Council adopted, first, resolution 233 (1967) on 6 June and then resolution 234 (1967) on 7 June. On that same day Syria and Israel accepted these cease-fire resolutions. But when did Israel attack Syria? It attacked Syria on 9 June 1967. The Security Council was faced with the filibustering and delaying tactics of Mr. Goldberg, the then representative of the United States, who deliberately kept the Council from meeting for over six hours to enable the Israeli assassins and invaders to occupy parts of Syria. But finally on that same day, 9 June 1967, the Council met and adopted resolution 235 (1967). It recalled the previous cease-fire resolutions and stated: ‘Noting that the Governments of Israel and Syria have announced their mutual acceptance of the Council‘s demand for a cease-fire, ‘Noting the statements made by the representatives of Syria and Israel, 154. Then on 12 June 1967 the Security Council, wltlch had been in continuous session from 9 to 11 June, adopted another resolution, at 2.30 a.m., resolution 236 (19671, in which the Council: “1. Condemns any and all violations of the cease. fire f’. Who was violating the cease-fire? Was it Syria in Israeli territory or was it the Israeli Army in Syrian territory? The answer is clear. “3. Affirms that its demand for a cease-fire and discontinuance of all military activities includes a prohibltion of any forward military movements subsequent to the cease-fire; 4. Calls for the prompt return to the cease-fire positions of any troops. . . .” 155. Did Israel, I ask the Council, abide by these cease-fire resolutions? Had Israel accepted the first cease-fire resolution, not one single Israeli soldier would have been on Syrian territory and not one inch of Syrian territory would have been occupied by Israel. These are facts of history, and again they jump into the face of Mr. Tekoah and his leaders and ask, ‘What have you done with history? ” He repeated the word “history” over and over again, not knowing that he was desecrating this very sacred word. \ 156. I could go on and on, but, since he spoke of the encouragement of indirect aggression, I refer him to one of the official historians of Israel, now living, Mr. Michael Bar-Zohar, who writes in Hebrew and is translated into English and French. He has a book on the market now, Spies in the Promised Land.8 I recommend this book to your attention. Just read the headings of chapters or peruse the book and see how the Lavon Affair and the Cohen Affair and all such affairs are being repeated. They were very well planned, and they are very openly spoken about. 157. Mr. Tekoah speaks about encouragement of indirect aggression. Again I would say that, whatever Mr. Tekoah has said or will say, it is nothing in the eyes of real history but the cries of a tortured conscience that sees no exit from hell. 1.58. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the represene tative of Lebanon on whom I call.

If I were to reply to the mass of accusations, falsehoods and fabrications that 8 New York, Hougton-Mifflin, 1972. 160. Mr, Tekoah the other day showed his magnanimity and his kind hospitality by inviting me-as he later invited my colleague and brother, Ambassador Abdel Meguid of Egypt--to visit the occupied territories and to see for myself in what wonderful conditions the Arab peoples are living there. This is a very kind invitation. As a matter of fact I have no objection to accepting such an invitation, but from the right person at the right time. The people who have the right to issue invitations to the occupied territories are the Arab people of Palestine, of Sinai, of the Golan Heights, the Jordanians-these are the people who have the right to issue such an invitation. I will definitely answer this invitation when, in due course, I receive it from the mass of Palestinian refugees, when they have regained their territories; from the people of the occupied territories when the hordes of the occupying forces have left those territories. 161. The refugee problem has been at the root of the problem of the Middle East for many many years. Many resolutions have been adopted by the General Assembly calling on Israel to allow the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland or to be compensated, asking that justice be done them. It is interesting to remind Mr. Te- 163. I have read today in the dispatches arriving from the Middle East, from Tel-Aviv, the following: koah that these resolutions as a matter of fact have been produced year after year by the United States, and I should like Mr. Tekoah to ponder these words of Mr. William Rogers, the Secretary of State of the United States, who in an address made on 9 December 1969 before the 1969 Galaxy Conference on Adult Education, in Washington said: ‘Mr. Allon, the Vice-Prime Minister of Israel, said in a speech to a collective farm meeting that he apologized for the bombing of the Lebanese village of Hasbayya last Wednesday, saying it was accidental. He said that a technical fault caused some bombs to hit the village. Meanwhile the toll in the 30 May Tel-Aviv airport massacre rose to 28.” “There can be no lasting peace without a just settlement of the problem of those Palestinians whom the wars of 1948 and 1967 have made homeless. << . . . He was trying to make a connexion between the massacre at Lod and the massacres at Hasbayya and Deir el-Ashair, As a matter of fact, he did not mention Deir el-Ashair. (‘The problem posed by the refugees will become increasingly serious if their future is not resolved. There is a new consciousness among the young Palestinians who have grown up since 1948 which needs to be channelled away from bitterness and frustration towards hope and justice,“9 164. But Mr. Tekoab admitted the other day to the Council that Israeli Phantom planes had bombed Deir el-Ashair and he claimed that the bomb hit a commando camp-he calls it a terrorist camp-there. As a matter of fact the “‘terrorists” that were killed there were 17 Lebanese civilians, the majority of whom were women and children. In Hasbayya 10 people were killed and 20 persons were injured. Havoc spread throughout the town and great destruction of many homes and vehicles and property took place. I should like to pass around to the Council some of the pictures of the mistake that Israel made in Hasbayya. It seems that Israel has a good record of making mistakes. These are very thoughtful and meaningful words pronounced by the Secretary of State of the United States. They accurately portray the conditions of the refugees, their spirit, their tendencies and the need to channel their hopes from despair to hope, from injustice to justice, from frustration and what it generates to a constructive life. Then the peace that Mr, Tekoah wants in the Middle East will be achieved. Then the conditions of peace will prevail. 165. I think we all remember that during the 1967 war Israel made a terrible mistake: its forces hit a liberty ship of the United States, killing and injuring over 100 American navy men. That was a mistake, a terrible mistake. Mr. Allon did not say that the shelling of Deir el-Ashair was a mistake or that the killing of women and children there was a mistake. These photographs and those mistakes show the murderous and Qrutal way in which Israel is trying to 162. Mr. Tekoah comes before this Council time and again to claim that he and his people and his Government want 9 See Cor&-ressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 91st Congress, first session, vol. 115, part 29, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1969), p. 39096. 166. That is the kind of philosophy that Israel is developing through its Iaw which my friend and brother, Ambassador Tomeh, has very well described; that is the kind of law Israel is developing, the law of sheer and brutal force to be imposed upon us. And he repeats very clearly in front of this Council that what you do-which is an “affront”, which is a “travesty of justice, ” which belongs to “the morgue of history”-has no value, and that what will have value against Lebanon is the force of Israel; he warns and threatens Lebanon right here in front of the Security Council. 167. What does Mr. Tekoah’s Government want from Lebanon by continuing its threats, its attacks and its aggression? Does it want us, the Lebanese people, to transform our peaceful life and to become warriors? Does it really want Lebanon to change its philosophy and its way of life and to develop armies and spend all its resources on armaments as Israel is doing? Mr. Tekoah speaks about the flower shop of Lebanon as a hideout for gansters and criminals, and he forgets that Israel, that big, beautiful flower shop of Lebanon as a hideout for gangsters and artillery which are every now and then launched against Lebanon and the neighbouring Arab States in naked aggression. 168. As I said, Mr. President, I do not wish to detain YOU unduly, even though I would have liked to expound on many other points which were raised by Mr. Tekoah the other day. However, I should like to come to the resolution that has been adopted today by the Security Council. 169. In our view, as in the view of many delegations around this table that have expressed themselve!;, this resolution does not fully satisfy us, It fails to satisfy us not because the Council has failed to render justice-we are very grateful to the Council for having gone a long way to meet our requirements-but because the Council on previous occasions had warned Israel against repetition of its aggressions and attacks against Lebanon. The Council had warned Israel that in case of repetition of its attacks against Lebanon the Council would consider steps or measures to give effect to its decisions. 170. It was with a certain sense of Realpolitik that we did not press for real steps and measures during this debate, because we knew that the Council would not go that far because of positions which may be very well understood when we read the draft resolution submitted by the United States of America, which is contained in document S/10723. However, I should like to remind the Council that in the last preambular paragraph of the draft resolution adopted tonight the Council has recalled the resolutions it adopted following five attacks by Israel against Lebanon. It refers also to resolutions 285 (1970) and 313 (1972), in 172. We request, through the Council, an immediate ~sld complete withdrawal of the Israeli forces remaining on Lebanese territory. As I mentioned the other dav, *P showed our faith in the Council when we came and that it strengthen the machinery of the United N observers on the Lebanese border. 173. The Council reacted by adopting the consens&g d April 1972 [S/10611], which is mentioned ln tl le preamb~a lar part of the resolution. The resolution mentions, amm@ other things, the various reports coming from the oboeman which have in part substantiated our chargks against 1% This is the kind of co-operation we would like to have wi& the Council, with the United Nations, with the represents. tive of the Secretary-General, in creating conditions h:r peace and tranquillity in the Middle East. This is the !&x3 of good faith we like to show you, Mr. President. It is p.+l-? the kind of contempt Mr. Tekoah launches in the fare <:f the Council every now and then. 174. We have heard explanations of vote here regar&,zg some parts of the resolution, especially concerning graph 3. We do not at all subscribe to the views tendi connect the case of the abduction of the Lebanese of and security personnel with other matters. The case PS’Q~: be dealt with independent of any other case. The abdwe,:: was committed in flagrant violation of international iaba and morality and of the Lebanese-Israeli Armistice ment and in violation of the purposes and principles Charter. The Syrian officers who were on our territoq RCP: visiting Lebanon. They were travelling, as we have ~sL.&. lished, in civilian cars on an open road in an unfortified ~PZ and not engaging themselves in any form or shape in ac”-Tzy act of hostility against anyone. Israel cannot claim tb,~r either the Syrian officers or the Lebanese officers a.~~: personnel were prisoners of war. 175. I mentioned to the Council that it had been ai’ril e? an Israeli military spokesman that they were surpri&& I.= find Syrian officers among those who were abdueacd Therefore, we have established the fact that then %X premeditated intent to capture Lebanese personnel Lebanese officers, to attack our people on our terrikxy. 176. Mr. Tekoah claims that they opened fire (?ab I& Israeli force there, which was composed of tanks =Z half-tracks, and those officers and military palicem~ travelling in civilian cars decided to open fire on z armoured force, an armoured unit of the Israeli army in&& Israel. What an absurdity. Does he want the Court& :.“ believe this big lie? 182. As for the allegation-which is repeated not only by the representative of Lebanon and some other Arab representatives but from time to time also by certain members of the Security Council-that terror warfare is the outcome, the result of resistance, all I would like to do at this late hour is to reiterate my invitation to Ambassador Ghorra and to all representatives around the Security Council table to come and see for themselves what the situation is in those parts of Palestine where the Arab inhabitants of Palestine are free to express their view on the central issue which has troubled the Middle East for so long and which has been before the United Nations for so many years-the question of coexistence, of living side by side, of working side by side, of Jew and Arab. 178. In conclusion, Mr. President-and I promise you I shall not speak again, even if other charges are made, charges as false as those that have been made against my country, my Government and my people-I should like to express thanks to those members of the Council who have seen fit to render us justice by passing the resolution adopted today. We particularly wish to express our gratitude to the representative of France, who has deployed his efforts during the last four days to find a solution to this problem and to the sponsors of the resolution and to the entire European group-although Italy’s name does not appear among the sponsors, for reasons we all know by now. We also wish to thank those delegations which have strongly supported us, which would have gone much further than this resolution in the support of justice, of pure justice, against naked aggression launched by Israel against Lebanon, 183. Let them come and see for themselves what is going on and whether the fanatical, ferocious, savage terror agents who are being sent out to massacre, to murder, to blow up houses and to shoot indiscriminately at school buses, represent the real interests, the real aspirations of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. They, like us, the people of Israel, want peace. However, the present Arab Governments which mask themselves by slogans of progress but are in fact historically feudal, totalitarian and reminiscent of the worst type of regimes that have existed in modern history; it is because of their attitude that there has been till now no peace between the people of Israel, the Arab inhabitants of Palestine and the peoples of all neighbouring Arab States.

I call on the representative of Israel.

The hour being late, I do hope I shall be able to make only a few observations, and brief ones, regarding the statements we have just heard from the representatives of Lebanon and Syria. 184. I would only add one comment on the question of refugees, This is one of the difficulties we face again and again ln these debates: Why cannot we try and remain faithful to facts and to truth? Is it necessary really to have behind every representative an entire research department to try and point out how history and facts are being falsified? The representative of Lebanon referred today to 300,000 refugees in Lebanon. But on 18 August 1969, less than three years ago in this very Security Council, he spoke of 200,000 Palestinian refugees [1502nd meeting, para, d7/. Now if even this simple number cannot be given truthfully, cannot be presented correctly and creditably to the Council, how can we weigh, how can we consider comments made here? Can one suggest that since 1969, 100,000 new Palestinian refugees have come to Lebanon? From where? Turkey? 181. The representative of Lebanon alluded to the statement I made immediately after the vote on the resolution adopted today. I shall not comment on what he had to say about my statement. I am sure that his Government will wish to study it very carefully and to consider it most profoundly. He referred to the question of refugees, again trying to allege that there was a link between the presence of refugees in Lebanon and terror warfare which has been carried out from Lebanese territory. I pointed out in my opening statement in this debate, and in a number of letters submitted by me to the President of the Security Council, that there is no correlation whatever between the presence and absence of refugees in any particular country and the question whether or not terror warfare is carried on from that particular country at any particular time against Israel. That has been true especially of Lebanon itself, because for more than two decZdes the Lebanese-Israeli frontier has been an example of tranquillity despite the fact that there are Palestinian refugees who have lived in Lebanon since 1948. Terror warfare started from Lebanon, as I explained, when the Arab Governments and the terror organizations decided that Lebanon would be the most appropriate country to serve as a base for aggression, for acts of violence and terror and murder against the civilian population of Israel. I can understand the predicament-all of us do-of the Government of Lebanon in the light of such a development, in view of such a decision by other Arab 185. The Government of Lebanon is responsible for having in the last few years turned its frontier with Israel into a zone of hostilities, into a war zone. If that iS SO, if those are the conditions prevailing along Lebanon’s southem border, the representative of Lebanon and his Government have no right whatsoever to preach to US about how pdsoners of war are taken in clashes between regular units of the armed forces. 186. I am surprised that the representative of Lebanon found it advisable to try and strengthen the case presented by him to the Security Council by referring to a statement 187. For years now not only the representatives of Israel but the world at large have been drawing the attention of the Lebanese Government to the presence on Lebanese soil of Arab terror organizations, of operational bases used by them for aggression against Israel, to the Lebanese Government’s responsibility to put an end to those acts of violence, to those criminal activities, and to its responsiblity to suppress those organizations. No one has any doubt that those are the facts. And yet the representative of Lebanon has come here year after year and said, “No, there is no such thing.” 188. I quoted only the other day a statement from the President of Lebanon, Mr. HBlou, saying openly why this is the method, why this is the manner of the submission of the Lebanese case before the Security Council. It was convenient for the Lebanese Government in 1969 to deny the presence of Arab commandos, as he calls them, on Lebanese soil, in the hope that this would bring about a condemnation of Israel. 189. I still wait-1 think the world at large and enlightened public opinion still wait-for the Government of Lebanon to recognize facts, to concede, as we sometimes do, that it makes mistakes and to say that it will mend its ways and that it will take the kind of measures that it is duty bound under international law and the United Nations Charter to take. As I said earlier, nothing will release the Government of Lebanon from this fundamental obligation. 190. The representative of Lebanon asked what Israel wants of his Government, of his country. I think this is clear to all those present. It wants one thing, it expects one thing, it will insist on one thing, and that is that the Government of Lebanon, in accordance with its interna tional obligations, in accordance with international law, in conformity with the Charter, its principles and provisions, put an end to the use of Lebanese territory as a base of aggression against Israel, especially when that aggression is being directed against innocent, defenceless civilians. If I were an Arab-and I say this with the most profound respect for the Arab peoples, for Arab civilization, for Arab contributions to mankind-I would be ashamed today to have to face a situation in which the massacre of innocent men, women and children is being considered in the world at large as synonymous with Arab warfare. 191. The representative of Syria, as always, has reminded me of an old Arabic saying. It applies to the representative of Syria, his statements before the Security Council, the policies pursued by his Government. That saying is: “He struck me and complained. -He preceded me and wept.” 193. This is something that the representative of Syria holds against us, the fact that we did struggle, that we did suffer, that we did lose millions of our brothers in the fight against the common enemy of mankind: Nazi Germany. 194. Now, the representative of Syria seems, at his convenience, to be rather sensitive about personal insults. 1 listened to him with great interest. He who in his recent letters to the President of the Security Council, addressing himself to Israeli Mlnisters, to members of the Cabinet by name, calls them neurotics, calls them barbarians; he who has already thrown at me the epithet of assassin and little Fuehrer, he is sensitive of personal insult and abuse. I am not of the same habit to make personal remarks about representatives of States Members of the United Nations. But he leaves me no choice today but to make an observation about the absurdities, the misquotations, the misrepresentations and the outright falsehoods with which he floods United Nations organs continuously, constantly, apparently in the hope that other representatives have ‘I *.. I would not be doing my duty. . . if I did not state that what the preceding speaker said about 7.5 Jews being killed in El Qamishliye in northern Syria is a complete lie because there are no Jews in that region, no Jews whatsoever.“’ 0 196. In the letter which the representative of Syria sent to the President of the Security Council only a few days ago, dated 13 June 1972, out of which he quoted so profusely entire pages, it is said: 200. There is an ancient Arabic saying attributed to Kaab El-Akhbar, who lived in the early ages of Islam, and it goes as follows: “The Jews of Damascus make up the major part of the Jewish community of Syria. There are 2,700 of them in the capital as against 1,300 in Aleppo, and 450 in El Qamishliye in the north-east of the country.” [see S/i 0698, annex/ “When God created all things, he gave to each a companion. Poverty said, ‘I am going to the desert.’ ‘I’ll come along with you’, said Health. Abundance said, ‘I’m going to Egypt.’ ‘And I’ll accompany you’, said Resignation. ‘I’ll go to Syria’, said Reason. ‘And 1’11 go with you’, said Lawlessness.” This is the same Qamishli about which he said only a few years ago, at the United Nations, that there were no Jews there at all. So it is until this very day. 197. After this, he expects us, he expects representatives at the Security Council table, he expects international opinion, to give credit to, to consider as veritable, as valid, the allegations, the charges, which he brings to us, although he is not able even to stick to the simple truth about simple facts. He can make whatever charges he desires against my Government and against me personally, and he can call me by whatever names he finds advisable to use in this organ, but he has still not found a single instance in which we have submitted facts, distorted and falsified, figures completely perverted, denials of realities.

I shall be very brief. After listening carefully to the statement of the Israeli representative, his quotations, his dramatization, his habitual dose of anti-Soviet outbursts, I have come to the conclusion that, although the resolution which we have adopted is a weak one, it has bit the mark. It is just, it reveals who is the aggressor and condemns him; no outpouring of words and no quotations can delete this from the history of the Security Council and a specific Council resolution. 198. This is mentioned by me simply as another example of the difficulties that we of Israel find in seeking some basis for understanding, for some self-confidence. I have made some comments about the fact that the United Nations unfortunately does not serve as a forum in which we and our neighbours can speak to each other instead of shouting at each other-discuss and reason with them and find solutions instead of raising hands in mechanical voting. If day after day we confront a situation in which even here, even in the United Nations, even in its highest organ, we are flooded with lies and distortions, where is the slightest basis for some self-confidence, for the beginnings of understanding between our peoples? Is that not what we shall eventually have to arrive at? 202. In this connexion, I should like to congratulate the representative of France,, our new colleague, who worked most actively on the preparation of this resolution on his successful ddbut. At the same time, I must express regret at the fact that, throughout the discussion of the Middle East problem in the Security Council, the Israeli representative forgot nothing of his anti-Sovietism and learnt nothing from the decisions of the Council. So much the worse for him. His speeches are the speeches of a condemned and unmasked aggressor, condemned repeatedly by the Security Council, condemned by the General Assembly, condemned recently by an assembly of heads of State and Government of the whole of Africa. This is impotent rage. And in his impotent rage the condemned aggressor in his last word insults those who voted for this resolution. This is nothing new. This cynicism, this disregard for the Security Council and its decisions by the Israeli representative is familiar to us. By adopting this attitude towards the decisions of this international body he does not enhance the prestige of his 199. I referred to the letter from which the representative of Syria quoted, his letter to the President of the Security 10 See OfficiaI Records of the General Assembly, Fifth Emergewy SpecPl Session, Plenary Meetings, 1538th meeting, para. 138. 203. In conclusion, it would be better for the representative of Israel not to ind.ulge in lengthy speeches and quotations which prove nothing and in no way justify Israel’s new acts of aggression against Lebanon, as has been confirmed by today’s vote on the Council resolution-13 members of the Council voted to condemn Israel and the two which abstained did not in their statements express delight at the additional acts of aggression against Lebanon. It would be better for him to tell the Council when Israel will withdraw its troops from Arab territory and when it will return to the rightful owners-the Arab peoples and States-the land stolen from them.

I call on the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

In every problem there are derivative problems or derivative aspects of the problem and there is the essence or the substance of the problem. The question that I pose to the Council in all objectivity and sobriety is: why is it that the League of Nations dealt throughout the span of its life and the United Nations has been dealing from 1947 up till now with the Palestine problem and its derivatives? What is involved here is no less than 50 years in which generation after generation has dealt with this problem and surely we have to give an answer. The answer is a right and correct one but a simple one: you cannot condemn a whole people, the Arab people of Palestine, to collective suicide. That is the crux of the matter. Other aspects are derivatives of this problem. 206. What Zionism and Israel have done from their birth till now is to commit an act of geopolitical murder against the Arab people of Palestine. Mr. Tekoah spoke about the number of refugees. Here is the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East from 1 July 1970 to 30 June 1971.11 Annex I, Table 1 gives the number of refugees. In 1966 the number of registered refugees was 1,317,749. In June 1971, the figure was 1,468,161. But I remind you that these are the registered refugees. The same report states for instance that there are 120,000, all the population of the Golan Heights, who do not receive any rations. And then there are political refugees all over the Arab world which make a total of 3 million. Therefore when the representative of Lebanon said that we have 300,000 refugees actually in Kuwait, in 11 Ibid., Twenty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 13. 207. Mr. Tekoah spoke about lots of things but I will not go into them in detail nor into the personal attack he made against me. All I say is that in order to have a true picture of the situation of the Jews in Syria one just has to read &c four articles. We cannot say that The New York nrlles is pro-Syrian, that the Belgian newspaper La L&e Be/R$ue icj pro-Syrian, and so on. In referring to these writers he was quite careful to say “three or four” of them, because some of them do say that they have been to the Jewish quarter and to the Jewish community alone and by themselves. Witness the following: “I was invited to a circumcision and to a wedding. I attended Sabbath services in various synagogues, without advance notice, I paid a call on the Grand Rabbi Nassim Andbo, who has the beard of a prophet and is said to be 100 years old.” [See S/l 0698, annex] So as regards these articles, I say that you do nothing more than go back and read them. 208. He went back to what he thinks is one of his strong themes and that is the co-operation with the Nazis. I have dealt with that at great length in the General Assembly and in various committees and I refer him to nothing more than Perfidy12 which was written by a well-known American Zionist, Ben Hecht, to the trial of Eichmann which proved that Eichmann in his own confession in the tribunal in Jerusalem had co-operated with the leaders of the Jewi& community in Hungary in order to save the aristocracy among them in order to be able to get trucks for the Nazi army, Is it a mere coincidence that all those who were involved in this affair-Bernadotte, Lord Moyne, who war the contact-were all assassinated? And then there was the great scandal that these revelations created in Israel ilself. But I shall go into that. He said I have yet to recognize facts. Well here again is an article by an Israeli infelfectual, Uri Davis, who refused to serve in the Israeli army. This is what he said was written about him: “Uri Davis declared draft resistance in an oppressive yet somewhat liberal state of Israel. Reuben Lassman, toge?th* er with three others, declared draft resistance in a stale of Israel that is, I believe, in the accelerated process OT consolidating along highly chauvinistic, and in the final analysis probably along ultimately fascist lines.” 209. As to the freedom which he says the Arabs enjoy, I shall leave this article for anybody who wants to read it. It was published in the Village Voice of 3 February 1972. lt says: “There are no Israeli-Arab radicals, poets, writers, stu* dents, intellectuals . . . members, people who were apa 12 New York, Messner, 1961. Did former President HBlou say that? Yes, he said that; and in saying that, he spoke the truth. President HBIou also said: 210. Ultimately, no matter what Mr. Tekoah tries cleverly to formulate, he stands not only as one accused, but also as one condemned who has no right to invoke history, and to the condemned Tekoah I say, “Do not invoke history; history will record itself what is right and what is just.” “We certainly respect the Jews as members of the great human family because we are in favour of freedom of religion and respect for the human person. Those among our citizens who are of the Jewish religion are considered by US to be one of the Lebanese communities. But we refuse to accept an incarnation of Zionism in a State which is oppressive and expansionist. We denounce this as an enterprise of spoliation and domination, the spoliation of the most accessible neighbouring lands and the domination of the minds of persons in the most distant places. 14 2 11. The PRESIDENT: The next name on my list is that of the representative of Lebanon, on whom I now call.

Mr. President, I made a promise to you and to the members of the Security Council that I would not speak again. So therefore I should only like to tell Mr. Tekoah that the dispatch from which I quoted regarding Mr. Allon’s statement is by the Associated Press writer Hal McClure, and that it just came on the ticker this afternoon.

I call on the representative of Israel.

I do apologize to you, Mr. President, and members of the Security Council, for having to impose on your patience and your time. I shall be really very brief. 213. He would be very well advised to read this statement before he accuses me of falsification. This comes from Tel-Aviv, and nowhere else. As a matter of fact, if it were not true, it would not have come from Tel-Aviv, because, to quote again from a letter by Mr. Norman Dacey from which I quoted the other day, published in The New York Times on 6 June 1972: 217. First of all, I should like to comment on what Ambassador Ghorra has just said. At the 1649th meeting I made a statement in which once again I drew attention to the fact that it is difficult to accept at face value the statements, claims and justifications for their policy put forward by Lebanese representatives in this chamber or in the General Assembly. I said that on 30 December 1968 in this Security Council the representative of Lebanon had stated: “Lebanon shelters no commando organizations” [see 1461st meeting, para. 1611. And then, as the representative of Lebanon indicated, I quoted from the Beirut daily, AIHayat, of 1 July 1969. “I have talked with the foreign press corps in Israel, who complain that they haven’t been allowed inside an Israeli prison for more than two years, that every word they write is subject to the strictest censorship and nothing critical is allowed to be sent out.” Well, if that is so, all I can say is that if Mr. Allon did not make such a statement the Israeli censors would not have allowed it to get out of Israel. 218. The representative of Lebanon challenged me to produce the text. Well, I have the text, and I shall be only too happy to show it and even distribute it and with your permission, Sir, I should like to say that the newspaper which I quoted reports on a conversation at the meeting between President HClou and members of the Lebanese Parliament in which questions and answers were exchanged. If I may, I should like to have read out in Arabic the precise words which appear in the daily Al Hayat of that date, and then I shall translate them. 214. Mr. Tekoah found it very convenient, in his usual way of misquoting or making selections or fabricating statements, to refer once again to an alleged statement by former President HBlou of Lebanon. I have refuted that in previous letters to the Security Council. He claims that the newspaper AZ Huyat on 1 July 1969 in fact printed that particular statement. I challenge Mr. Tekoah to produce copies now or at any time for the members of the Security Council to prove his allegation. I can prove to the Council, by copies of Al Hayat of 1 July 1969, that President HClou never uttered such words. Former President HBlou is an honourable and courageous man; he stands by his word. And he would have stood by his word had he made that statement. He presided over the Lebanese delegation to the twenty-fifth session of the General Assembly; he made a speech, which is in the records of the United Nations and to which I would direct the attention of the representative of Israel. President Hklou spoke many a truth in it, but I [A passage was read out in Arabic.] 219. This is the statement by President I-IBlou, in reaction to or perhaps in explanation of the fact that the representa- 14 Ibid., para. 17. And then the President added: “Lebanon had stressed in the Security Council that there were no saboteur bases on its territory in order to obtain a condemnation of Israel by the Council.” 220. The representative of Lebanon claimed that Arab inhabitants of territories held by Israel since 1967 do not enjoy the freedoms of movement and expression that I stated the other day they do enjoy. I think that he is once again misrepresenting to the Security Council a situation of which he is undoubtedly aware, because there are literally thousands of visitors from his own country-not to speak of about 150,000 visitors from other Arab States-who are right now in those territories, visiting their families, speaking to them. I have no doubt at all that the representative of Lebanon knows what the sititation is on the West Bank or in Gaza on these matters. 221. For instance, he alleged that people who wish to criticize the Government of Israel are placed in gaol, especially Arab inhabitants. Well, there is no censorship in Israel. It so happens there is no censorship in Israel, and it so happens also that the Arab inhabitants of these areas-not to speak of Israel proper-have been free to express their feelings and their thoughts. We are proud of the fact that not only in Israel proper but in these territories there are Arab poets who write poetry against the Government of Israel and its policy. We are proud of the fact that there are Arab newspapers which are published daily and which criticize the policies of the Government of Israel. It may be difficult for certain members around this Council table to understand that such a situation is possible, but it is possible in a democracy, in a free society of the kind we havefin Israel. 222. And if that is true of the Arab inhabitants of Israel and territories held by Israel it is obviously true of every Jewish citizen of Israel, like the one cited here by the representative of Syria. If Mr. Davis knew how frequently the representative of Syria quotes him-at almost every meeting-he would really feel he had reached some of his greatest ambitions probably unattainable in life, because apparently there is no one else, or very few others, in Israel the representative of Syria can quote. 223. Mr. Davis, like anyone else, is free to feel, to do, to say whatever he likes. And as you, Ambassador Tomeh, yourself pointed out, he even refused to enter military service in the Israeli army. I would like to make a very simple suggestion to you. If you do feel such high regard for Mr. Davis, you are quite free to make a little exchange. He is free to leave any time to go to Syria or to any other 224. To the representative of the Soviet Union, my old verbal ping-pong partner who is so very much concerned about how we Israelis and the Government of Israel feel about our international situation-again and again be seems to harp on the difficulties we face, on the condemnatlens which have been adopted by mechanical votes in this or that organ, and he draws his own conclusions-I would simply say that if Israel had the veto power, as the USSR has, we would also come out as pure and blameless as the USSR is coming out even if we behaved as the Soviet Union has behaved and is behaving.

Unless I misunderstoed him, the representative of Israel has tonight extended tc members of the Security Council an invitation to go and visit occupied Palestine and see for themselves the con ditions under which the Arabs of Palestine live under Israe]] rule. 226. Well, it so happens that two States members of the Security Council are also members of the Special Corn. rnittee to investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the I-Iumaa Rights of the Population of Occupied Territories. But the Government of Israel has in the past, as we all know, refused to admit the members of that Special Committee to these regions. Now, I should like the members of the Security Council and the Secretary-General to take specia] note of this invitation, if my understanding of the statement of the representative of Israel is correct.

I shall now call upon the last speakers. I consider there has been enough time for rights of reply. Statements have been made in right of reply repeatedly. Therefore, the last speakers inscribed on tlx lisl are the representatives of Israel and Lebanon. 228. I call upon the representative of Israel.

In response to the observation made by the representative of Somalia, I would suggest that representatives around this table are sufficiently aware of the facts and developments not to be played upon on the assumption that they are ignorant and gullible. 230. Israel accepted a United Nations mission in 19G7. It came to examine the situation of the civilian population in territories affected by the 1967 hostilities. That mission visited Israel, Israeli-controlled areas and the Arab States. 111 the Arab States the representative of the Secretary-General who carried out this mission investigated and concerned himself with the very question that has been brought up in the course of this meeting: the plight of Jews in Arab States. When, two years later, the Arab delegations pushed through the General Assembly a resolution by a minority vote-a minority of the Member States supported it-and refused to allow the Committee established on the basis of g !’

A very brief remark regarding the alleged statement Mr. Tekoah read from Al ’ Huyat of 1 July 1969. In his statement the other day, he said: 233. That is my final word, Mr. President, and I thank you. I also thank the members of the Council for their patience, and for their patience in having listened to so many distortions and allegations by the representative of Israel. “It was only a few months later that the President of Lebanon at the time, Mr. HClou, stated, as quoted in the Beirut daily A/Hay& on 1 July 1969:”

I had closed the list of speakers. Nevertheless, having in mind the co-operation of all the members of the Council in this debate, I call again on the representative of Israel. and he quoted Mr. H&ou as saying: “President He’lou said, inter alia, on 3 November 1968 that the number of saboteurs in Lebanon did not exceed a few hundred and we were then dealing with their problem.”

The representative of Lebanon based his reaction on his letter. I based my comments on a direct quotation in Arabic and in English from the Beirut paper. I leave it to the tape recordings of the present deliberations to establish who is right and who is misinterpreting. and so on, and so on. And then he claimed that President HClou had added: “Lebanon had stressed in the Security Council that there were no saboteur bases on its territory in order to obtain a condemnation of Israel by the Council.” [see 1649th meeting, para. 2SOJ

There are no more speakers for this evening. The debate is therefore concluded. 237. It remains for me to express my thanks to the members of the Security Council for their co-operation and efforts in the consideration of the item on our agenda. #at he has now had read out to the Council in Arabic to make it believe he told the truth is refuted by my letter of 8 June 1972 fS/I0689/, in which I said the following: 238. In concluding the meeting I wish to mention the possibility of further action by the Council on the basis of the last paragraph of the resolution which was adopted this evening. “On 1 July 1969 the newspaper AI ffrryat referred to questions”-and what he read were questions-“which had aIIegedly been asked of the parliamentary groups during the consultations which had been held the previous day in order to form a new cabinet. Some of them did in fact relate to the Palestinian organizations, The meeting rote on Tuesday, 27 June, at 12.15 a.m. 2.5 HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS IJnited 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 Lea publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dnns les librairies et les agences d8positaires du monde enlier. Informez-vous aupres de votre libraire ou adressez-vous A : Nations Unies. Section des ventes. New York OLI Genhve. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas e&n en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Secci6n de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebm. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1.50 (or equivalent in other currencies) 1%82131-December 1975-1,925