S/PV.1708 Security Council

Mr. President, allow me first of all to express the delight and satisfaction of the Austrian delegation at seeing you occupy the chair of President of the Security Council for the month of April. It may perhaps be slightly inappropriate for a colleague who is both junior in years and experience to you to join other representatives in the praise of your high diplomatic talents and skill and list the many stations of a most distinguished career, of which Vienna has narrowly failed to be one. But it is certainly not inappropriate to express our feelings Of respect and esteem to the representative of a friendly country with whom Austria shares much more than the red and white colours of our flags. In expressing confidence in the success of your mission as our President, I do SO out of the highly gratifying personal experience of someone who had the privilege of working with you in another mission entrusted to you by the Security Council, which gave me ample opportunity, Mr. President, to appreciate your great sense of political responsibility and dedication. 52. Allow me also to address a few words of gratitude to our President for the month of March, Mr. Aquiline Bopd, who was the host of the Security Council during its first meeting, now a part of history, in Latin America, and who was at the same time an extremely skilled and untiring President of the Council during a number of difficult moments. May I ask Mr. Boyd, in accepting these expressions of thanks, to transmit the renewed token of gratitude of my delegation to the Government and people of Panama for the warm and generous welcome which will remain in our memories for a very long time. 54. Once again this Council is faced with a chain of events which have caused a widespread wave of death and bloodshed, events which have resulted in a dangerous new upsurge of hatred and tension. Once again this Council-as so often when it deals with matters concerning the crisis in the Middle East-is faced with a debate characterized by much bitterness and recrimination and a growing sense of frustration. This is hardly the climate in which the Council can fulfil its primary task defined by the Charter. This is hardly the climate in which the Council can make a contribution to an easing of tension, to create the necessary prerequisites for peace and security in a conflict which has not ceased to preoccupy the United Nations since its very founding years. 58. We are fully aware that acts of violence and terror are only the symptoms of deep-rooted evils; and nowhere should this be more obvious than in the crisis in the Middle East. Eradicating violence from the political scene in the Middle East, and thus from other regions into which violence has spread in a dramatic way over the last years, can only be one step in an effort to which this Organization has already dedicated so much of its time and energy. It is the absence of a solution in the Middle East and it is the passage of time which explain, to a high degree, the growing sense of frustration and impatience which has bred so much unrest and tension, This applies particularly to the large group of Palestinians whose plight and frustration has never failed to win the sympathy and understanding of my Government and people, never insensible to the problem of refugees. Nobody disputes the existence of this political crisis in the Middle East; nobody disputes the extreme urgency of a peaceful solution. There is much less agreement, however, on the ways and means to attain this goal or even on the preliminary steps which could promote a new climate of de’tente and thus bridge the gap of misunderstanding and distrust between the parties. 55. Much of the debate so far has been taken up by the description of a wave of violence whose origins are as much in controversy as the responsibility of its authors. The debate has centered on a wide array of facts, many of them of the very recent past, which lead to one principal conclusion: that we have reached a dangerous phase of escalation of violence in an area which, more than any other, has always shown extreme sensibility to events of this kind. The events before us are so dangerous in nature, the evil dynamism they unleash so obvious, that we find it impossible to react in any manner other than by stressing once again what has always been the clear position of the Austrian Government in the face of international violence, wherever found, in whatever circumstances and by whomever committed. We can only repeat what the Austrian Federal Government, expressing the deep feelings of the Austrian people, has invariably affirmed: the clear and unequivocal condemnation of all acts of violence as justifiable neither by exceptional circumstances nor for any other reason. We say this not only out of a firm dedication to the principle of peaceful solution of conflicts but also 59. ln view of this growing sense of confusion and controversy, we should not lose sight of the fact that a widely recognized basis for a solution exists. It is Security Council resolution 242 (1947), adopted unanimously on 22 November 1967, which contains ali the elements to bring about peace with justice and security for all nations in the Middle East, including a just settlement of the refugee problem, This resolution demonstrates that the United Nations, with the assistance of all concerned and especially with the active co-operation of the permanent members of the Council, is not incapable of devising the platform for a solution. out of a deep respect for human life. 60. But it is perhaps no less useful to remember that resolution 242 (1967) also provides machinery and procedures to facilitate progress towards that goal. It is undoubtedly for those engaged in the conflict to choose, amongst the peaceful means available for the solution of their differences, those they consider most appropriate. Despite this indisputable right, my delegation feels that, in the present situation, no possibility should be left unexplored and none of the existing platforms-and, as I said earlier, there are very few indeed-should remain unused. 56. This attitude of principle is the only one a peaceful nation which pursues a policy of permanent neutrality-a policy of permanent rejection of war as a means of international politics-as its guideline in international affairs can adopt. As a consequence, we find it impossible to differentiate between acts of violence, to justify one and condemn the other. It is for this reason that our approach to the events which have led to the present series of meetings of the Council, the Israeli raids against Palestinian leaders in Beirut, .can be no other than our absolute rejection of the killing by terrorists of diplomats in Khartoum, bomb attacks in Cyprus, or other outbreaks of violence of the recent past. 61. It was precisely in this spirit, incidentally, that the Austrian Federal Government, at the preparatory talks for a 63. Mr, SCALI (United States of America): Mr. President, I wish to join other representatives on the Council in welcoming your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. Although I am a newcomer, I have already had the opportunity to benefit from your wise counsel and to note the calm, dignified and objective manner in which you are presiding at these meetings. 64. As we are meeting here today, I think it is important that we recognize that we are confronting a new and more dangerous turn in the long and frustrating search for peace in the Middle East. The cycle of violence in this part of the world not only is continuing but has also taken on newer and uglier dimensions. To the shame of all mankind, acts of violence and terror, often striking down innocent people, are on the verge of becoming a routine foot-note to the tragic and unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. 65. In focusing attention on violence, I do not ask that we lose sight of the human and political problems which have already defied solution for a generation. Rather, 1 wish to place in perspective a phenomenon that is both inherently important and important as a barrier to further efforts to bring real peace and security to the Middle East. 66. In the past few months hundreds have been killedinnocent men, women and children, diplomats, tourists and bystanders alike. If we are to do anything about this, it is important that we understand that this new turn may be more than a temporary phenomenon in the history of mankind. It can become an accepted way of life. 67. We are living today at a time when a knock on the door may signal the visit of an assassin armed with a machine-gun or a fire bomb. It is intolerable that our fears have now reached the stage that at thousands of airports around the world innocent civilians must submit to complex security searches before boarding their planes and then pray that their flights will be safe. It is intolerable that innocent civilians cannot enter their automobiles without fear that they have been converted into instruments of death. It is intolerable that opening the morning mail may trigger an explosion. It is intolerable that the innocent cannot regard even the family apartment, the social gathering, the Olympic sporting field or the quiet streets as an abode of peace. And it is intolerable that diplomats must conduct their tasks with concern for what may happen to them or their families in the future and with grief over what has already transpired. Everywhere life, the life of the innocent bystander, has been made tragically cheap. 68. Are these acts of terror and counter-terror to become accepted as the new rules of engagement to a tragic 69. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations affirmed the right of every human being to life, liberty and the security of person. Is this Declaration now to be forgotten? 70. So that there will be no misunderstanding, let me make it emphatically clear that the United States opposes violence and terror from whatever source and of whatever kind. We do not and will not condone violations of the sovereignty of one State by another State. Neither, however, do we condone murders in violation of basic human rights by individuals or groups, Such individuals and groups depend on the support or on the acquiescence of Governments on whose territory they exist and from which they plan and direct their operations. That support and acquiescence is clearly contrary to the General Assembly’s Declaration on friendly relations as well as to general principles of international law. 71. While we are aware of the political realities which are usually cited to excuse action or inaction on the part of certain Governments, it is the duty of each State not to condone or abet or close its eyes to these acts of terrorism. Indeed, it is the duty of every State actively to prevent the organization or instigation of such acts on its territov, whether they are directed against its own citizens or againsl the citizens of other countries. 72. The question now in the Middle East is not who started what but how this vicious cycle is to be broken. This is our real problem. States must not export violence. Private groups must not export violence. At this moment, assessing blame is secondary to the purpose of ending the misery and suffering on both sides. The overriding task of the Council is-to seize the present opportunity and move to put an end to violence so that the political process will have a chance to operate. 73. The meaning of the Declaration on friendly relations [General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), annexJ is clear. It says: “Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.“’ 74. The cycle of violence will not be broken by drawing distinctions between violence by conventional forces and violence by individuals and groups. Violence by CO~YCIItional forces and violence by terrorists are to be condemned equally, One is as ugly as the other, The time has come to recognize that we must be equally stern in dealing with all forms of international violence. 76. We have heard many statements here condemning one side or the other, trying to assess blame. We believe this is an essentially sterile approach to the problem, These arguments will not lead to an end to the present agony, for it is in the nature of a vicious circle that cause and effect become impossible to distinguish. 77, The time has come, indeed it is already overdue, when there must be a halt to alI acts of terror by all sides. Even as there is a truce on the ground which has stopped the major hostilities for 32 months, so, too, there must be an end to this grisly exchange of violence and counterviolence which extends the battlefield to areas where innocent people inevitably become its victims. All of us, regardless of our sympathies, have a duty to act now, and not by one-sided condemnations or by demands for unequal punishment which ignore the real world, 82. I hope that I shall not abuse the time of the Council. If we could solve these problems by using arguments only, I would then insist on occupying this seal: for long hours, But, alas, this is the twenty-sixth year of speeches, arguments and counterarguments. The archives of the Unjted Nations overflow and it is tjme to say to the Security Council and to the world that we have had enough. The positions are clear, Israel established itself, strengthens itself, extends itself and appears in the midst of the Middle East as a real Power, Perhaps tomorrow it will even be a nuclear Power. Who can prevent it? The Palestinian people, the victims of injustice, chased from their homeland, have nevertheless not lost their faith. Like other peoples before them, they have taken the road of battle and of sacrifice to recover their right to their homeland. Who can turn them away from this? Surely not Israel, which has jumped 5,000 years back into history to seek justification for its right to the land of Palestine. The Arabs all around, who have lost a part of their territory, suffer humiliation and domination and remain exposed to repeated aggressions, have no other choice than to fight for their survival and dignity. 78. Instead, let us move carefully, avoiding the temptation for the short-term propaganda advantage which inflames rather than heals. Let us not vie with one another in cataloguing our grievances and sufferings. It is not enough to look backward. It is time to look forward. My Government is prepared to do so, as v!e continue our search for a better understanding among these temporary foes, who one day must: be friends. Let us facilitate the change from violence to peace, An instrument for this lies at hand. Let us use it; let us use the already existing framework for an over-all settlement. I refer to resolution 242 (1967), which points the way to the goal of a lasting peace through which all the peoples of the Middle East can achieve security and justice, Resolution ‘242 (1967) calls for a just settlement of the refugee problem. The United States recognizes that peace in the Middle East can only be achieved by taking into full account the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians. 83. Peace is ardently desired, but it is so far removed and, like a mirage, it will continue to reflect illusions as long as men of goodwill have not won the cause and as long as the profound aspirations of the peoples of the Middle East, particularly those of Palestine, have not been satisfied. All this jndjcates that we run the risk of having to remain powerless for a long time to come before a situation which is fluid, but explosive, and which threatens to become permanent and, at the same tjme, intolerable, because of the victims which multiply, the rancour which develops and the anger which underlies it all. An assessment of the losses and benefits of both sides during the 2.5 years would be interesting, What are the losses of the Arabs? Much of their territory, And the benefits’? Practically none. Even the hopes born at the end of the colonial era and at the time of the independence of 18 Arab States are now somewhat dissipated. Today, a well orchestrated propaganda tends to present the image of the Arab as an assassin who js to be avoided at all costs. On the other hand, the Israelis have gained much territory-1 should say many territories. But the image of small Israel threatened on all sides by Arab States has disappeared, to give way to the image of an invincible Israel, But, paradoxically and at the same time, 79. Unless the ‘Council can move from recrimination to even-handed condemnation of all forms of violence, there will be no progress towards peace. Therefore, we ask for an end to both cross-border attacks and individual acts Of violence. If the Council will call for this, it will create an atmosphere in which we can move on from the assessment of blame to the making of peace. Let us move ahead urgently to encourage negotiations for a peaceful settlement. 1 appeal to the members of this Council to act in such a way that this meeting can contribute to the goal Of a lasting peace in the Middle East.

The next name on the list of speakers is that of the representative of Tunisia, 1 invite him to take a place at the Council table and to address the Council. 84. Lie all that Israel does, this Beirut affair will sooner or later have a boomerang effect. It is thought the Palestine Liberation Front is decapitated by the killing of a few leaders, but in fact that gives birth to new leaders who are younger and therefore more intractable. Terrorism is a reality of our days. We condemn it; we endeavour to do away with it. But it is there. It is used by individuals and by one State as a means of action, the effectiveness of which is questionable but which gives the authors a certain satisfaction, However, Israel will not succeed in silencing the Palestinians by attacks and incursions in Lebanon and elsewhere. The Palestinians will surely not recover their rights because of the sole fact of terrorism, we may be told. But their struggle is just and cannot fade into oblivion. 8.5. Furthermore, we must realize that the problem no longer concerns only the Arabs and Jews of Palestine. The problem is of concern to the entire international community. Is the problem ripe for the international community to guide States towards an equitable solution’? On what does the ripeness of the problem depend other than the exact assessment of all and the attitude of equity of the Powers concerned iu the conflict between antagonists? 86. In 1947, when the United Nations decided on the partition of Palestine, the only concern of the international community was to satisfy the Zionists, and hence to take advantage of Hitler’s holocaust and of the feelings of justified compassion he aroused for the Jews of the world. With rare exceptions, the Arabs were then still under foreign domination. In many regions of the Arab world, the struggle against colonialism had not yet reached its apogee. Instead of accepting the part of Palestine that had been given them by the resolution on partition, the Arabs of Palestine preferred to reject partition, They were then suddenly chased from their homes through the back doors of neighbouring Arab countries and, finally, they are now refused the right to exist in their own country and even elsewhere, since they are chased everywhere, while, on the contrary, the great Powers recognize Israel’s existence and its right to expansion to boot! The rights of the Palestinians are ignored. What is more, it would seem that the policy of certain countries, on the pretext of the struggle against terrorism, is intended to chase the Palestinians wherever they exist in the vain and illusory hope of safeguarding peace and tranquility in the region and making sure that Israel will be perennial. 87. Resolution 242 (1947) does not refer to the Palestinians except as refugees, whereas the problem of their national rights is paramount in any settlement in the Middle East. Where, then, is the right of all peoples to self-determination? Where is the principle of the integrity of all States, of a just and equitable policy, of an over-all settlement that will ensure lasting peace based on justice? Many arguments were advanced in the course of the debates of the Security Council leading to the adoption of resolution 242 (1967). Since then-and this is 1973, six years after the six-day war-withdrawal from the occupied 88. We might be carried away by despair and conclude that we shall never see reason prevail in the Middle East, were other factors not to intervene in our analysis, Those factors are the following. First, while ignoring the Pales. tinian people the Israelis actually live in fear-and it is the Palestinian people they fear, because that people really exists and profoundly believes in its inalienable rights. Secondly, there has been an evolution of thought in Israel, above all among the young, who are beginning to become aware of the injustice committed against the Palestinians and can no longer bear belonging to a country which in fact follows a colonial policy, despoiling Arab lands and occupying territories that belong to other States. Thirdly, international public opinion shows increasingly widespread reprobation for acts of aggression of Israel such as its extraordinary attack on the Libyan aircraft in Sinai and its numerous punitive expeditions against Lebanon, 89. But all those factors have not yet attained sufficient force to influence the course of events. The list of acts of violence that has been presented by the delegation of Israel since the first day of this debate, to which we must not forget to add the acts of aggression perpetrated by the Government of Israel, is certainly edifying. It is no longer classical terrorism. It is a continuation of the conflict in a new form, with acts of spying and counter-spying, frequent assassinations, bombings and armed incursions. This is grave; this is serious, And here developments are far from reassuring. The cease-fire is precarious. Israel has made no effort to change its Zionist and expansionist character. Yet it is evident that, had Israel accepted implementation of United Nations resolutions concerning the refugees [General Assembly resolution 194 (M)J and withdrawai from the occupied territories [Security Council resolution 242 (1967)J, a better situation would have been created in the Middle East. All efforts at mediation have, unfortunately, failed-the getting together of the great Powers, the Jarring Mission, the good offices of wise Africans, the many efforts of numerous Governments. 90. The prospects of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East seem remote to us. Are we to wait until the situation deteriorates further before we act to promote just and equitable solutions as necessary? Is it not time for all of 1% small and large nations alike, to become aware of our responsibility and require respect for the Charter of the United Nations and the resolutions of our Organization? Has not the time come to take up this problem with new methods and a more realistic and positive spirit, and to grant the Middle East absolute priority in our concerns? What is needed is a general mobilization of our efforts for an over-all solution that will provide universal recognition for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and 96. We are far from being pessimistic. Nor would we affirm that the United Nations no longer represents anything and that one must therefore resign oneself to the idea that sooner or later it will meet the fate of the League of Nations, On the contrary, we are one of the small countries which are devoted to the Organization and attached to its ideais, and our devotion to it is only equalled by our discontent and protest because of the now increasingly numerous acts and excessively persistent policy of certain States. We must not forget that South Africa and Portugal are among the States which paralyse the Organization, discredit it and, finally, act as though they would wish to condemn it to a slow death. 97. We are among those who believe that the responsibility of the great Powers is decisive in the Middle East; that of the super-Powers is even more decisive. But we also believe that the small and medium-sized countries, including the Arab countries, not only have something to say but could, by concerted effort, design a well-studied strategy and decide on intelligent and bold action, and thus lead the great Powers of this world to a more just assessment of the situation and lead them to take more vigorous action against the many evils which are, alas, too numerous in this century, which is reputed to be one of progress and justice but which yet sees so much racism, colonialism and foreign domination in all forms-and I cannot forget the underdevelopment and the poverty suffered in the third world and against which we must unite our efforts. 92. And yet the leaders of the Palestinian people, the leaders of a liberation movement, have been assassinated in Beirut by a group acting on the orders of a Government, and that group later, after its crime, was publicly congratulated by the Prime Minister of a State Member of the United Natjons. That is the first fact; it is grave and exceptional. 93. Yet what is now obvious-and the present debate of the Security Council bears witness to this-is that the problem of Palestine is before the Security Council. From this I shall draw two conclusions. Before demanding of the Palestinians that they respect international law, the international community should, first of all, take action so that international law respecti the Palestinian people. It is not logical to place them beyond the pale of the law and then designate them as outlaws. But we must say that, for ourselves and for the Palestinians, morality must prevail. The second conclusion, which is rather more of a question is: Why should not the Security Council hear the representatives of the Palestinian people’? 98. It is this direction which has always guided US in the United Nations, and particularly in our actions with other delegations during the twenty-seventh session which led to the adoption, by 123 votes, of General Assembly resolution 2991 (XXVII), in which the Assembly: “2. Culls upon Member States to ensure the strict application of the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations; 94. The second fact is no less grave: The Government of Israel sent a group of armed men to the capital of an independent and sovereign State to carry out an operation including acts of sabotage and political assassination, and this in defiance of all laws except one-that of the jungle. Israel has permitted itself such audacity, first because it knows that it is armed to the teeth and because Lebanon, a peaceful country, has practically no army, and secondly because in Tel-Aviv there was a conviction that the international community would not react positively. “3. Appeals to Member States which have not yet expressed their views on ways and means of enhancing the effectiveness of the Security Council in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Charter to do SO by 30 June 1973 at the latest,” 99. I should also like to recall that the delegation of Tunisia-which comes from a country that has a wellknown experience, since for eight years there was a war of national liberation raging in a neighbouring country-has, for a long time, foreseen the development of events in the Middle East. That is why we had reservations when the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security f General Assehbly resdurion 2734 (XXV)f was adopted 9.5. We now see the Security Council hearing speeches. Will it take the necessary decision or wili it once again hesitate because of the fear of a veto? What are we to think of that? Must the small countries draw the conclusion that, to protect themselves from aggression, it is their duty to arm themselves as much as or more than their neighbours? Then why is there such a flood of declarations of the United Nations on the strengthening of international 100. On behalf of the people and the Government of Tunisia, on behalf of President Bourguiba, I should like to place on record before the Council the total solidarity of Tunisia with Lebanon, to which justice must be given by the application of the provisions of the Charter. 101, This latest aggression of Israel against Lebanon is after all, however grave, an incident among many others more or less serious and more or less deadly. And all these incidents are a source of concern and profound anxiety. We believe that we now face a particularly dangerous situation in the Middle East. It is the duty of the Council to confront the situation and to take the required measures. What has just occurred in Beirut and the events of the last months are really alarming. It is the duty of all of us to put an end to the escalation. 102. We have said so before the General Assembly and we repeat it today before the Security Council: the problem of the Middle East should have high priority in cur concerns and in the concerns of our Governments.

Mr. President, let me first of all express my great pleasure in joining other members of the Council in welcoming you to the presidential Chair in which you can be sure of the fullest co-operation and goodwill of the Australian delegation. 104. 1 should also like once again to convey our appreciation and our congratulations to our other colleague from Latin America, Mr. Boyd of I’anama, on his felicitous handling of the presidency in the month of March, during which we held our momentous meetings in his own country, 105. I am glad also to join in welcoming our new Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Shevchenko, and to extend to him our good wishes and encouragement in the tasks and responsibilities that lie ahead of him, 106. My delegation has listened with close attention to the statements made in the past few days on the matter that is now before the Council. If I say that we have listened without enjoyment, I mean to cast no reflection on the sincerity underlying the strong feelings which have been expressed in the course of this debate and which we can fully understand. These strong feelings are of course not unfamiliar to this Council. But they seem, on this occasion, to reveal, perhaps more clearly than ever before, the symptoms of the pattern of escalation of violence and degree of provocation offered from either side. And it must be brought to an end, or the sympathy, patience and understanding which exists throughout the world and which extends particularly to the Palestine refugees may come to be tried beyond endurance to the point where the Security Council will find itself being pressed to take decisions that will be unwelcome to all the disputing parties in the Middle East. 108. We have listened in these past few days to a constant ebb and flow of intense recrimination, In this emotional atmosphere of charge and countercharge of aggression, or complicity or acquiescence in aggression, it is perhaps too much to hope that either side can bring itself, at any rate in this Council, to show any understanding of, and to make the slightest concession to, the problems, the fears and the motivations of the other side. But it is this complete polarization of attitudes that have become frozen over the years that helps to aggravate the already difficult task of the United Nations and particularly of this Council. 109. In the context of the agenda for this meeting the Council is called on by the representative of Lebanon to take into serious consideration, against a background of earlier aggressive acts charged against Israel, “the new Israeli blatant act of aggression against Lebanon” [S/lO9lI/. 110. This would suggest that we are not expected to take account of all other retaliatory acts of violence and terror or of their underlying causes. Investigation of the undcrlying causes is to be the task of the Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism established by the General ASsembly under its resolution 3034(XXVII). But for the fundamental underlying cause we do not of course need to look beyond the persistent failure of the search for a settlement of the dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbour States. 1 I I, I am happy to say that the Government and people of Australia enjoy good relations with the principal countries concerned and no country is more anxious than mine to see a just, secure and lasting peace established as soon as possible in the Middle East. And in the view of my delegation the first, and we believe the most positive and helpful step in that direction, might be to break the cycle of aggression and reprisal and thus to turn back the wave of murderous violence and terror that has spread outwards from the Middle East across the world. 112. If we are right in this belief, there seems to be little point in our considering the latest Israeli act in isolation from the rest of the horrifying matrix of recent international violence and terror. This debate seemsto havethrown up a new expression, “state terrorism”, and there WI be no doubt that what happened in Beirut on the night of Q to 10 April was murder planned, directed and acknowledged 119. I have listened with great attention and consideration to the statements made today by the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States. I agree with Mr. Scali that we are not here to apportion or assess responsibility, but I must call the attention of the Council to the fact that a certain emphasis has been placed on one aspect of the problem, terrorist acts, a subject which is not before the Council, more than on the specific question we are dealing. with. There has been a reference to the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly during its twenty-fifth session [resolution 2625 [XXV), Annex]. A quotation was given from that Declaration. I hope that the inference will not be drawn that Lebanon is the particular State that is organizing, instigating, assisting and participating in acts of violence and so on. I should like to remind members of the Council of other portions of the same Declaration and I shouId like them to be clearly put in the record. The Declaration solemnly proclaims the following principles.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Lebanon. I1 5. Mr. GHORRA (Lebanon): I should like to express the thanks of my delegation to the representatives around this table who have spoken rightly and openly, have shown the solidarity of their countries with Lebanon in these trying times and have joined in exposing and condemning the acts of aggression conducted by Israel against Lebanon. “Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues. I 16. I should like to call the attention of the Council to a very important fact. Here in document S/Agenda/l708 dated 16 April 1973, which was adopted at the beginning of this meeting, there is one item entitled: “The situation in the Middle East: letter dated 12 April 1973 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/10913)“. We are facing one particular aspect of the situation in the Middle East dealt with in that particular letter, which is a definite complaint by Lebanon about a definite, precise and specific act of aggression conducted by Israel on the morning of 10 April 1973 against my country. I do not see in that document any item called “terrorism”, nor do I see another item called: “Review of the Middle East situation in general in connexion with resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967”. ‘L . . . “A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law. L‘ . . . “Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes . . .“. 117. As far as the second point is concerned, yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt apprised the Council (1707th meeting] of his desire, after the conclusion of the debate on the Lebanese complaint, to seize the Council with a new request, That is his privilege and we shall await his action and be here to support him and to show the same spirit of solidarity towards Egypt and the other Arab countries victims of Israeli aggression that Egypt has shown today in participating in the debate on this particular and specific item. There are other provisions in this Declaration-which I am not going to quote, since the question is not before us-relating to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, We shall come to that at a later stage. 120. There is always a certain attempt to speak of balance and of fairness: an attempt to equate acts with other acts. I have made it clear before in my statements to the Council, and I should like to make it clear again, that in dealing with a specific complaint by Lebanon we are not here to equate acts of violence carried out by individuals--by anybody anywhere in the world against anyone-with a precise act of aggression carried out by Israel against Lebanon. This is not the first such act, This Council has condemned Israel several I lg. As far as concerns the question of terrorism, acts of violence and attacks on diplomats and civil aircraft, the Council is free to discuss it at any time under any item. Members of the Council have the full privilege of seizing the Council of a specific item on terrorism or acts of terrorism, and naturally we have no objection to that, but, when the 121, I should like here to remind the Council of an opinion that a former Foreign Minister of Israel, Mr. Moshe Sharett, once expressed. In a lecture he gave in 1957 he opined that: “A people should not consider, when military reactions outstrip in their severity the events that caused them, that these actions do not produce grave’ processes and set in motion these grave processes which widen the gulf and thrust our neighbours into extremism.” 122. Well, that is the precise action that Israel is conducting against peaceful, moderate Lebanon in order constantly to push it and its people into a most difficult situation; and, unfortunately, we are at the present time facing a situation where we have to carry a certain portion of the assessment of the blame. To try to apportion responsibility for incidents and outrages perpetrated every now and then, here and there,, is to divert attention from the real responsibility. Israel was and remains the party principally responsible for the tragedy of the Palestinian people and for its resulting consequences. The Zionist and Israeli terrorism before, during and after 1947 and 1948, and as a result of the 1967 war, has driven over a million and a half people out of their ancestral homeland into exile; their lands, their homes and property have been taken by foreigners ingathered in Arab Palestine, 123. This historic, factual responsibility should not be clouded in the minds of people and the arguments of present-day realism should take into serious consideration this basic element when there are attempts at apportioning responsibility. Singular acts, no matter what their magnitude may be and whatever the impact they may have on public opinion, should not blind people to the fundatiental truth about the tragedy of the Palestinian people brought about by Israel. Nor can the United Nations absolve itself of its cardinal responsibility. 124. It is not my intention to recall all the facts about the role played by the United Nations in the creation of the Palestinian problem; but are we not justified in reminding the Council and the international community at large that the United Nations has permitted the problem of the Palestinian rehlgees to last for a quarter of a century, and 125. My delegation is raising these arguments at this stage to bring back into correct focus the dramatic events which arc still flowing out of the original and capital sin-that of the spoliation of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. To freeze the Palestinian problem at its present level, to neglect to find a solution to it, to avoid dealing with it courageously, fairly and squarely, to yield, wittingly or unwittingly, to Israel’s systematic and obstinate refusal to settle it, is tantamount to a deliberate invitation by the United Nations for additional tragic events to rock the world. It also means that the United Nations is allowing itself, by its inaction or refusal to act, to wander away from facing the realities of the situation and to evade shouldering its fullest responsibility, 126. Those who are concerned about the growing acts of violence-and we share their concern-must step out of the stalemate of this quiet and lethargy which is prevailing in international affairs and hit at the roots of the problem. It has been sufficiently repeated that violence begets violence. There is the stark reality of the existence of one and a half million Palestinian refugees who are still living in deplorable, miserable and frustrating conditions after 25 years. As long as the international community does not address itself to finding a just solution to their problem, the cycle of violence in which the Middle East is gripped today will not be broken and cannot but go on spiralling. 127. Israel seems to enjoy, in the opinion of experts, not a balance of military power with the Arab States but a net superiority over them. Israel is using that superiority right and left, and we are its victims. Israel uses it not for defence, as its leaders pretend, but to maintain an offensive campaign of terror and intimidation against the neighbauring Arab States. But that superiority cannot Iast for ever. Great Powers and empires have risen and crumbled in the course of history; no amount of military superiority and power has saved them. But nations which built their existence on solid moral and human foundations were able to withstand the calamities of time and survived. 128. Regarding the Arab world, we must remember the historical truth that Israel and its supporters must reckon with; it is an historical as well as a present-day and future reality, A Jewish man with great vision, Professor Judas Magnus, a founder and first President of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, saw it a long time ago when he spoke of “. . . the permanent truth of the presence of the Arab world, with which all nations have had to reckon, and so must Israel. The Israelis are no exceptions; they only enjoy a temporary superiority”. Mr. Magnus also said, with chilling prescience: “The day we lick the Arabs, that is the day, I think, when we shall be sowing the seeds of an eternal hatred of such dimensions that Jews will not be able to live in Palestine for centuries to come.” 130. On this day of Passover I invite the Jews of the world to think about peace-and to think about it sincerely. I agree with Mr. Scali and Sir Colin Crowe regarding the peace and prospects of peace that we should look forward to. We should act for peace; that is our aim. It has been the aim of the Arab Governments and peoples for a long time. They have, as I mentioned before, a great stake in peace, for in peace alone can they achieve their national goals of educational, economic and social progress and political stability. 137. The representative of Lebanon, however, did not refer to and did not read out to us the principle that I and other representatives have cited in the course of this debate, contained in the same Declaration, and I should like to repeat it: 131. President Sadat of Egypt, in an article published by the quarterly Foreign Affairs in its issue of October 1972, emphasized the importance of peace to his country. He said that Egypt had no interest in the wars of the Middle East. He added: “Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State. “They are tremendous obstacles on her road to progress. The cause of peace will not be furthered if the victor is allowed to dictate his terms and to exact the fruits of his victory. The future we and the other Arab nations dream of is one of justice and of peace in co-operation with all those who wish to assist our progress towards those goals.” “Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.” 132. Egypt made positive moves towards achieving peace in February 1970. It was commended by the United Nations in various resolutions and by international public opinion. Perhaps I should remind the Council here that Mr. Richard Nixon, the President of the United States, described the Egyptian attitude best when he said that “Egypt was forthcoming more than expected”. 138. The representative of Lebanon asked whether the references to this particular obligation implied that Lebanon and its Government were considered to be responsible for violating this obligation. The answer is clearly yes. The Government of Lebanon acquiesces in the presence of armed bands on its territory. It encourages them by its attitude; it fosters and gives added strength, by the kind of statements to which the Security Council has been treated in the course of this debate, to the terrorist groups active on its territory. 133. Why should we all feel powerless in the face of Israel in our search to achieve a just and durable peace? Why is Israel allowed to perpetuate a stalemate and, consequently, to further the deterioration of t.he situation we are all complaining about? Mr. President, I would like to assure YOU and members of the Council that there are countries which are attached to peace and to the prevalence of peace in the world. But allow me to say that there is no country in the world which is attached to peace more than Lebanon. 139. It is time for the Government of Lebanon not to be selective in its references to international obligations, to Charter principles, to declarations, especially those adopted unanimously by all Member States of the United Nations. Either there is one law for all or there is really no sense at a11 in our discussing the application of international principles of law and morality. Indeed, any one of US, or of the onlookers and listeners that have been following our deliberations thus far, must have been troubled by a number of questions.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Israel, on whom I now call.

We have heard in the course of the present debate a great deal about peaceful, innocent Lebanon, By now the world is fully acquainted with how peaceful and how innocent Lebanon and its capital, Beirut, are. Lebanon is like the house owner who consorts with murderers, who permits drimjnals the use of his home and then, when the neighbours strike back, complains that the house is being damaged or affected. 140. Is not the Charter of the United Nations based on the sovereign equality of all its Member States? Why then is one Arab representative after another permitted, as they have been again today, to come before the highest organ of the United Nations and openly reject Israel’s right to independence? Why are they permitted to claim here that a11 peoples in the world have a right to national identity, to freedom and self-determination, but not the Jewish people? Why are Arab representatives allowed to turn the Security Council Chamber into a forum where slander and 136. TO the Government of Lebanon I would give a piece of very simple advice. Get rid of the murderers in your 141. How long will the United Nations have to hear what the world knows to be a total untruth: that the problem of a million Palestinian refugees, out of more than 40 million refugees in all parts of the globe who were resettled a long time ago, is the source of Arab terrorism, which began long before there was a single Palestinian refugee in the world? 142. Those who have been listening to the statements made in the Council today and yesterday must have been ‘pondeiiiig and wondering over a number bf questions. Does not international law, do not United Nations resolutions, prohibit the organization and the support of terrorist acts from the territory of one State against another, as provided for, for instance, in the Declaration I cited? Why then does not the Security Council do something about the maintenance of terrorist bases and the initiation of terrorist acts on the territory of Lebanon and other Arab States? Why does the Council listen passively to Arab Governments justifying their identification with terror atrocities and demanding a licence for continuing in this criminal attitude? 143. Is there or is there not a fundamental Charter principle recognizing the right of every State Member of the United Nations to self-defence, a right transcending all other principles and obligations? Why then is there criticism of Israel’s action against the terrorist bases from which savage attacks have been launched against its territory and its citizens? Is it merely because this action was carried out by Israel? Does not the principle of self-defence apply to Israel as it does to other countries? Is not the entire enlightened world engaged today in combatting international terrorism? Why does not the Security Council do something about it’? 144. What is the advice that we hear at the Council table? From Arab representatives it is simple: disappear from the world and then there will be peace, Well, the Jewish people has rejected such advice for several millenia; it does not intend to heed it now, especially when it comes from such paragons of international law as Arab representatives or the representative of Indonesia, which State thought nothing of massacring half a million Chinese citizens only a few years ago. Where was the Security Council then? 145. What alternatives do those who have expressed dissatisfaction with Israel’s action against the terrorist bases have to offer to us? Address ourselves to the United Nations? Has not our Organization proved helpless to take effective action against terrorism? Have we forgotten what happened only a few months ago at the General Assemb1y session? Turn to the Security Council? How many times is 146. Have we already forgotten how, when in 1967 Egypt chased otit the United Nations Emergency Force from Sinai and Gaza, imposed a war blockade in the Straits of Tiran, massed its forces for attack along Israel’s borders and began shelling Israeli villages, the Council found itself in a mire of polemics, incapable of taking any action? 147. What is then the course of action against the barbaric campaign of Arab terrorism that is being proposed to us here? Nothing, nothing at all. Since the beginning of the El Fatah-Black September atrocities in 1970, 80 Arab terrorists have been caught in Western countries-some of them in States represented in this Council, including States whose representatives have spoken today. All of these terroristsall of them-have been released. Now, is this the wa)- trl combat terrorism? Is this the example set for Israel? In another country, Yugoslavia, only a few days ago, an Israel table-tennis team participating in an international tournament was compelled by the Yugoslav authorities to leave because those authorities gave in to the threats of )\rab terrorist organizations to attack the Israeli sportsmen. NIW is this a policy to be emulated? Do nothing? Surrender tr: the menace of savage bloodshed? Release criminals cngasecl in it? 148. A Jewish citizen of the USSR recently wrote a ktlrl to the Secretary-General, explaining his suffering, his despair and his longing to live as a free man in IsrxI. Recalling Jewish history-the inquisition, the pogroms, &C Nazi holocaust-he wrote: “In the heart of every Jew there is a cemetery.” Yes, we have not forgotten and we ~ha11 JM forget. We have not forgotten the 6million barbarimh butchered, the 2 million Jewish children led to gas clra!t%e bers and crematoria, while the world stood by in silence. We have not forgotten how, in those dark years of persecution and murder, we were being told that there W~Q principles of sovereignty, of domestic jurisdiction, of vital State interests which prevented intervention, which LWvented effective action to save 6 million Jews. The a&ice given us today-.sit still, do nothing about the murder *lf Jews in our times because there are questions such as thrl<C of sovereignty-cannot but bring back the echoes of {IX past. 149. The problem before the Security Council is ~1~‘ap. Egypt and Lebanon and their supporters are asking ftir .i licence to continue international terrorism. Israel subtnils to the Council that, in the absence of any readiness by &at* Governments to abide by their obligations and put an cg$J to the use of their territory for murder operations, in Ill<* absence of any effective measures by the United Nations a** curb international terrorism, Israel has no choice but (19 protect its people with its own means. The cycle of viokIm is not of Israel’s making. When Arab violence ceases :lrld

I call on the representative of Lebanon.

I promise that I shall be extremely brief. In the light of the statement we just heard by the representative of Israel in which he very clearly expressed a warning to Lebanon by saying, “before they bring that house down upon you”, I wish to draw the attention of the Council to the threat that was made following the attack on Beirut by the Minister of Defense of Israel, Moishe Dayan, who said that in the future Israel would not act against individual terrorists alone, but would strike against the neighbouring Arab countries, and there was a direct threat against Lebanon, That is the kind of threat that we are facing every day. It was not sufficient that Israel committed an abhorrent and abominable act of aggression on 10 April, Its spokesmen had to follow that act by making further threats against our lives, our sovereignty and our territorial integrity.

I call on the representative of Israel,

I have asked to speak simply to make one point. It is not the first time and it is not the first of his statements in which the representative of Lebanon has resorted to utter distortion, even of words pronounced a few minutes before his own statement. I at no time in my remarks said that Israel threatened Lebanon in any manner. My statement was that the Lebanese Government should eliminate the terrorist gangs from its territory before they bring the house down upon Lebanon, 152. Again we hear the rhetoric of Mr, Tekoah about the 6 million Jews. I think he has used that argument enough in the Council. We are not responsible for that act, and we never participated in it. We have been the victim of the Irolocaust.

Before adjourning the meeting, I am pleased to call on Mr. Arkady Shevchenko, Under-Secretary-General for Pohtical and Security Council affairs, who wishes to make a statement.

I have spent considerable time within these walls and I have always striven in the past and shall continue to strive in the future in my new capacity to do everything in my power to ensure that the tasks set out in the Charter of the United Nations are accomplished. I am sure that the United Nations Secretariat, under the leadership of the Secretary-General, will do everything necessary to carry out those tasks. 153. Israel wants to live in peace? Well, it can. The Jews of Israel can live in peace and harmony with their neighbours. The Jews of Lebanon live in peace and harmony with us. We value them, I take this opportunity here today solemnly to address to them my congratulations on this holy day. I have many friends among them, and I value their friendship. We have no hatred against the Jews or against the Israelis. We have hatred against acts of violence and of aggression. If Mr. Tekoah and his people really wish to live in peace, in a spirit of conciliation, of peace and justice, I invite him and his people to allow the Palestinian propfe, on this day of Passover, to begin to pass over the horders and to reintegrate in their ancestral home. This‘is the invitation that I make to Israel: for the people of llalestine to reintegrate in their home and to live In peace. I assure Mr. Tekoah that if the Palestinians are allowed to go back to their homes and ifjustice is done to them, they will 159, I should like sincerely to thank you, Mr. President, all the members of the Security Council and all my old friends and colleagues for the warm words of welcome which they addressed to me. The meeting rose at 1.50 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section. New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATXONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sent en vente dans les librairies et les agences dkpositaires du monde entier. Informea-vous aupres de votre libraire ou adressez-vous a : Nations Units. Section des ventes, New York ou Geneve. KAK IIOJIYYIITh H3AAHHfi OPrAHN3AUHM OB’bEAHHENHhIX HAUUR COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de Ins Naciones Unidas estin en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Wnidas, Section de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 2.00 (or equivalent in other currencies) 73-820014une 1978---2,200