S/PV.1740 Security Council

I wish to draw the attention of members of the Council to document S/10987, which has just been circulated and which contains a draft resolution submitted by France and the United Kingdom.

I have the honour on behalf of the delegations of France and the United Kingdom to introduce the draft resolution contained in document S/10987. 5. The preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution are, I hope, self-explanatory and non-controversial. They bring out the view unanimously expressed by the members of this Council that the action we have been considering constituted a violation of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity and an interference with international civil aviation, contrary to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions of international law. 6. Operative paragraph 1 expresses the Council’s condemnation of the Government responsible for the act committed on 10 August. Paragraph 2 sets out the international instruments, the principles and the resolutions which have been violated by this action. Paragraph 3 is directed towards action by the International Civil Aviation Organization to safeguard international civil avjation against acts of this kind. The purpose of paragraph 4 of the draft resolution is to prevent the repetition of such acts as that of 10 August. 7. In this draft the sponsors have sought to reflect the views expressed by all members of the Council. It may not go as far as some delegations would wish. But I should like to remind the Council that at the conclusion of his statement yesterday morning (1737th meting] our French colleague expressed the hope, in view of the clear-cut character of the complaint, that the Council would take a decision without delay and unanimously. I believe that this statement, which my delegation fully endorses, epitomizes the essential duty of this Council in face of the issue We have been convened to consider. The sponsors trust that the Council will agree that the draft resolution fulfils that essential duty.

There are no more names inscribed Qn my list of speakers, Unless any representative wishes to speak, I would propose’that the Council proceed now to vote on the draft resolution contained in document S/10987. As no delegation wishes to speak, the Council Will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution. A vote was taken by show of hands. The draft resolution was adopted unanimousi?. ’ 1 See resolution 337 (1973). 11. First, the draft is inadequate in failing to put forward effective measures for stopping Israel’s criminal acts. The Chinese delegation maintains that the Security Cquncil resolution should condemn Israel in stronger terms. 12. Secondly, the Chinese delegation would like to point out that, with regard to certain international Conventions on civil aviation in whose formulation the People’s Kepublic of China did not take part, the Chinese Government has yet to study them and cannot assume the obligations thereunder at the present stage.

I wish to explain my delegation’s affirmative vote on the resolution which the Council has just adopted. ln my statement yesterday I stated clearly the position of my delegation that: “Nothing short of applying sanctions against I’srael will make Israel pause and think twice before it eInbarks on any similar adventure, or make it learn that this Council has political will, real authority and self-respect.” / 1738th meeting, para. 24.] 14. Naturally, we would have opted for a text clearly reflecting that position. The resolution just adopted does not fully satisfy the non-aligned countries and, naturally, it does not fully satisfy the Arab countries. But, for the sake of unanimity, which has its moral significance, and in order to have a unanimously adopted resolution as a basis for future effective steps, we accepted the draft resolution submitted by the delegations of France and the United Kingdom and decided not to introduce another draft resolution. 15. We appreciate the efforts made by the delegations of France and the United Kingdom, and because of our appreciation and in deference to their concern we decided to vote for the draft resolution. 16. We hope that Israel will heed the resolutions of this Council, that such flagrant acts will not be committed again and that, if they are committed, this Council will live up to its responsibility.

The Soviet delegation would like to speak in explanation of its vote on the draft resolution submitted by the French and the United Kingdom delegations, which has just been unanimously adopted, 18. In their statements during the debate the members of the Security Council and the representatives of other States Members of the United Nations expressed their firm moral 19. The Soviet delegation cannot but agree with those of the representatives speaking in the Council who eInphasized that this act of State terrorism and air piracy is the most blatant violation of existing conventions aimed at con,- bating the unlawful seizure of aircraft and protecting the safety of international civil aviation. 20. In our view, and in the view of many other members of the Council and Members of the United Nations that have spoken here, the Council must take effective measures to put an end to Israel’s aggressive actions, in order to make any repetition of acts of this kind completely impossible in the future. The main weakness of the resolution jIIst adopted is precisely that it makes no provision for such measures. I shall return to this subject presently. 21. The statements of many members of the Council and representatives of other countries have exposed and condemned the attempts of the Israeli leaders to glorify their policy of State terrorism and to justify their aggressive actions against neighbouring Arab States. It should be noted that the statements of the representative of Israel in the Council were devoted to everything but the specific case which the Council was convened to consider. The Council heard no assurance from the representative of Israel that such aggressive acts would never again be committed by the Israeli military. Quite the contrary, the represcntative of Israel made it unmistakably clear that the Israeli military will continue to resort to such provocations. 22. Notwithstanding all the shortcomings of the draft resolution, the Soviet delegation voted in favour of it because it contains a condemnation of Israel’s actions against Lebanon. WC believe that a condemnation of Israel’s actions by the Councii does reflect, even if perhaps inadequately, the protest of world public opinion against the State terrorism and air piracy practised by the ruling circles of Israel and the Israeli military. 23. As to Soviet public opinion, it has responded with revulsion and indignation to Israel’s act of air piracy against the peace-loving Arab State of Lebanon and vigorously protested against it. In particular, the newspaper Izsest&~~ in its issue of yesterday, 14 August 1973, stated the following: “The piratical seizure of a Lebanese aircraft and the new concentration of Israeli troops on the Lebanese aIld Syrian frontiers is evidence of Israel’s intention to continue its expansionist policy and to go on torpedoing any political solution of the Middle East crisis.” 30. The resolution goes in the right direction and has the additional merit of enjoying the unanimous support of the Council. However, the fact still remains that it does not go far enough. Here was an undisputed case of a State having utilized the resources at its command to hijack a civilian airliner from the territory of another State. The action involved violation of the sovereignty of another State, interference with international civil aviation and violation of international Conventions to which Israel itself is a party. The action violated the principles of the Charter and, as the resolution itself states, of international law and morality. Yet the Council could not bring itself to condemn Israel in stronger terms. 25. In the light of these disturbing reports, which cannot fail to arouse the concern not only of my delegation but also of the delegations of other countries, the resolution adopted today seems to us all the weaker. 26. In its statement at the 1736th meeting of the Council, of 13 August, the Soviet delegation advocated the adoption by the Council of effective measures to put an end to Israel’s aggressive actions, This reflects the Soviet Union’s position of principle in the matter. We cannot, therefore, fail to express our regret at the fact that the draft resolution does not, in essence, provide for the adoption of sanctions against Israel, which has been systematically and deliberately violating United Nations resolutions and the fundamental purposes and principles of the Charter. We see in this a weakness of the resolution; we see in this a manifestation of the Council’s lack of determination to adopt measures against Israel that would once and for all prevent it from taking any aggressive action and would put an end to its countless violations of the Charter and of the universally recognized rules of international law. 31. The safeguards provided in the resolution against repetition of such actions by Israel in future are also couched in very vague terms. The warning could have been more direct and specific, in terms of taking definitive action in the event of a repetition of such acts in future, and not in terms of only considering taking adequate steps or measures, 32. The reference made in the resolution to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is also in general terms. My delegation feels that the Security Council could have directed (CA0 to take appropriate measures against this clear-cut violation of Conventions concerning international civil aviation. Of course, in the normal course, ICAO may act, but we would have thought that after the Security Council had examined this question in the over-all context of the maintenance of international peace and security, it should have not merely called on ICAO to take note of the resolution it was adopting, but given it more concrete guidelines for further action in its own limited technical field. 27. In the light of these remarks, the resolution is, in our view, merely a half-measure, a kind of palliative. Nevertheless, the, very fact ?hat the Council has condemned IsraeI’s actions demonstrates once again the profound political isolation of those who are trying to impose their domination in the Middle East through force and arbitrary action, I should like to hope that the resolution adopted today will be a useful, if incomplete, contribution to the Inobilization of all of world public opinion against the State terrorism, arbitrariness, violence and air piracy practised by Israel. As for the Soviet delegation, it has always emphasized, in the consideration of the present Lebanese cornplaint as on all other occasions, the need for the most vigorous condemnation of Israel’s actions and for the adoption by the Security Council of truly effective measures to put an end to these aggressive actions. We are convinced that by taking such a position, the Security Council will be able to make far more progress towards ensuring peace and security in the Middle East. 33. The solemn warning, in our view, should have been clearer and more explicit, calling on Israel to desist from any and all such acts against any Member State. Today it involved Lebanon, but it could involve any other State tomorrow, and there was no reason why this element should not have been brought out very clearly in the resolution. 34. Lastly, as regards safeguards for the future, one would have liked to see a provision calling on States to refrain from extending assistance to Israel which would encourage it to repeat such actions in future.

I should like to say a few words in explanation of our affirmative vote on the draft resolution

I shall be extremely brief, as my delegation explained its views at yesterday afternoon’s meeting of the Council [1738th meeting]. 37. The resolution just adopted does not entirely reflect those views. My delegation would have preferred a more strongly worded resolution in condemnation of the Israeli action. But, apparently, the text which has been adopted by us proved to be the minimum acceptable to Lebanon, which brought the complaint before the Council, and the maximum acceptable to some of the members of the Council. Therefore, my delegation decided to vote in favour of the draft resolution in order to achieve the unanimous condemnation of Israel.

Before I give my delegation’s explanation of vote, let me take this opportunity to greet Sir Donald Maitland, the new representative of the United Kingdom. I am sure that my delegation will continue to enjoy the excellent relations and co-operation with the United Kingdom delegation that we enjoyed when it was headed by his worthy predecessor, Sir Colin Crowe, who earned such a warm place in the hearts of all of us. 39. My delegation voted for the draft resolution sponsored by France and the United Kingdom because, in some of its essential parts, it meets the requirements of the situation and because it contains some of the basic elements that are needed, eIements that the Yugoslav delegation underlined in the concluding part of its statement on Tuesday [I 737th meeting]. 40. The resolution unequivocally condemns Israel; it describes the nature of Israel’s deed; it is oriented, in paragraph 3, towards measures to be taken by ICAO to defend the international community from such Israeli practices; it solemnly warns Israel against any repetition of such acts that violate the Charter, international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and endanger the safety of international civil aviation. 41. Two aspects of the adoption of this resolution we view as particularly important and favourable: first, the unanimous condemnation of Israel for such an act, the condemnation by all 1.5 members of this Council; and secondly, the fact that the Council so resolutely rejected Israel’s claim to have any right, any grounds, on any pretext whatsoever, to be the law unto itself. 42. The Council has indeed voted for the sanctity and supremacy of the Charter and international law, for the equal obligation of aIl countries to live by them and for no entitlement by anyone to any special place outside them. 44. Having stated the reasons why my delegation voted without any reluctance for the resolution just adopted, 1 would now for the sake of the record briefly state why we think it did not go far enough, what we would have preferred to see. First, we had hoped that the Council could bring itself to describe Israel’s act more clearly as one of State terrorism, because that is what it was. Our inability to do so does not help our collective consideration of the problem of terrorism and measures against it. Second, we would have preferred paragraph 3 to refer to needed measures specifically directed against Israel. We do not think that that would have been illogical or prejudicial or one-sided, for the simple reason that Israel happens to be the only State that today not only hijacks pl.mes and commits acts of air piracy but also asserts its right to do that again, anywhere and any time. Third, we thought that an operative paragraph recommending to countries to refrain from any assistance to Israel that might encourage such acts by it, or from any assistance to Israel if it were to repeat such acts would be beneficial and reasonable. Fourth, acting together with the non-aligned group, we would have preferred a stronger condemnation. 45. Nothing can detract from the historic fact that the Council acted today as it did. If that warning does not deter Israel, then it should be clear to everyone what we are really faced with and what we shall have to do.

As no other member of the Council wishes to explain his vote at this stage, I shall put aside nlg gavel as President of the Council and explain my vote as representative of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 47, Our vote today is a continuation of our efforts to extend the rule of law. The United States has consistently joined other members of this Council to express its grave concern over the threat to the innocent resulting from hijacking and other unlawful or unwarranted interference with civil aviation. Our vote in no way represents a change in my Government’s views on the probIems and the possibilities for solution in the Middle East, nor should it !X interpreted as endorsing the principle of sanctions as a means of dealing with this problem. 48. The American people feel strongly about the need for a just peace in the Middle East. They feel strongly about the need to eliminate all forms of international terrorism. whether they be by individuals, groups or Governments. They also feel strongly about the rule of law, in the international field as at home. That is why I have OII two occasions observed in this Council [1708th and 1738th meetings] that the cycle of violence in the Middle East nol only is continuing, to the shame of us all, but has taken 01) 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 tbc tragic and unresolved Arab-Israeli con. flict.” 57. Nothing has been said in the course of the Security Council debate that could weaken the incontrovertible tenet of international law and the Charter whereby the Arab States must be held responsible for the use of their territory by murder organizations to wage an open campaign of barbaric atrocities against innocent human beings in various parts of the world. Nothing said here was capable of derogating from the evident truth that by harbouring those organizations, by supporting them politically, financially and militarily, the Arab Governments are guilty of persistent violation of Israel’s sovereign rights under the Charter and the cease-fire, and in particular of the right to security from armed attack. 50, The fact that this resolution confines itself to expressing the Council’s condemnation of a specific incident should serve as no comfort to anyone contemplating illegal acts of violence or terrorism. Rather, it is a warning to all members of the world community that the community will no longer tolerate illegal interference with one of the basic means of communication from any quarter. Should there be further instances of international lawlessness or terror, 1 most sincerely hope that this body will again demonstrate ah-nilar unity and determination. Nor should our vote be read to mean any commitment to any kind of specific measures. Terrorism, illegal violence and threats to the innocent must stop. Humanity demands it; our conscience demands it. 58. No member of the Council could plausibly show that a State which violates the sovereign rights of a neighbouring country could at the same time substantiate the claim that its own rights bar the injured country from defensive action. Not a single tenable argument has been put forward that in this situation Israel could be denied the right to self-defence. Nobody has questioned the well-known fact that other States-among them, permanent members of the Security Council-have in similar conditions exercised their right to self-defence in the same manner as Israel, 51. We, for our part, will continue to oppose such actions whether by Governments, individuals or groups, regardless of nationality or of motivation. 52. Yesterday, I called on this Council to unite on a resolution that would mark a turning-point in our efforts to eliminate international lawlessness and terrorism. Only time can tell whether we have done so. I pray the answer will be, 59. It is obvious to everybody that there must be one law for all, and that Israel will not be an exception. No member of the Security Council has dared to challenge Israel’s judgement that the life of a single Israeli child is more sacred than any claim of the inviolability of territory serving as a base for aggression. Law exists for men, not vice versa. The criminal individual or the State violating law cannot seek refuge behind it. Everywhere and at all times the protection of innocent lives takes precedence over solicitude for the alleged rights of those who endanger human life. “YW”. 53. Speaking as PRESIDENT I call on the representative of Israel now that we have concluded the explanations of vote.

The resolution adopted by the Security Council is the customary one-sided text this organ has been producing on the Middle East situation. It closes its eyes completely to the grave menace of Arab terrorism which necessitated Israel’s defensive action on 10 August. 55. This is not unusual for the Council which during the entire 25 years of the Middle East conflict has been unable to make up its mind even once that armed attacks against Israel by Arab States or from the territory of Arab States constitute transgressions against the Charter of the llnited Nations and international law. This is not exceptional for the Council which has never, not even once, brought itself to condemn the murder of Israeli children, men and women. 60. Consequently, those who hope that the world will be rid of the murderers of defenceless men, women and children, those who pray that massacres such as those of Lod, Munich, Khartoum and Athens should never happen again, can rest assured that Israel will not fail them. The Government of Israel will continue its struggle against Arab terrorism with determination and unswerving firmness. It will continue to protect the lives of its citizens. It will give no quarter to the ruthless killers of the innocent. It will pursue them and strike at them until mankind is free of their bloodthirsty savagery. 56. In these circumstances, the precise wording of the resolution is of lesser import than its primary significancenamely, that the United Nations is unable to cope with international terrorism in general and with Arab terrorism in particular. Indeed, no member of the Security Council has challenged that basic fact. No one has suggested that States should abdicate their duty to combat terrorism and leave the struggle against that scourge to the helpless organs of the international community. No one could have suggested that Israel should rely on the Security Council or the General Assembly to take effective measures against the Arab campaign of violence and bloodshed. No one had a 61. In striving towards that goal, Israel will co-operate with all responsible Governments and all competent international organizations which seek to ensure international security and the safety of world communications.

I call upon the representative of Lebanon.

Allow me at the outset, Mr. President, to express to you and to all members of the 64. It has been said by some of our colleagues around this table that this resolution represents for my delegation a minimum. In a way it does. But, on the other hand, I must express our satisfaction at the fact that it was adopted unanimously and that in very clear terms it has condemned the Government of Israel “for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the forcible diversion and seizure by the Israeli air force of a Lebanese airliner from Lebanon’s air space”. We have resorted to the Council before on several occasions following attacks and acts of aggression by the Israeli air and land forces against Lebanon. The Council has adopted resolutions. The Council has warned Israel before us against repetition of its acts. The Council has stated very clearly in several resolutions that if such acts were to be repeated the Council would meet again in order to consider taking or to take steps or measures against the attackers, against the aggressors. We know that this Council has today not gone as far as that-something that we would have welcomed-in order to prevent repetition in the future of Israeli aggressions against my country. However, we are satisfied with the open moral and political support of the Council, which, in our view, represents the conscience of mankind; it represents international public opinion, not only on the official level but on every other level as well. The Israeli delegation occasionally refers to what they call “enlightened public opinion”. I take it that the unanimity of this Council and the internation,al opinion behind it definitely represent the enlightened public opinion of the world, and that Israel’s public opinion is self-serving in its assumption that it alone represents the enlightened public opinion of the world. i 65. We have heard from the representative of Israel that his Government will pursue its course, What does that mean in fact? The Council has flatly rejected the assertion of the Israeli delegation that Israel has the right to take the law into its own hands, and you, Mr. President, have rightly said that Governments should act within the law, not outside of it. We consider the statement of the Israeli representative, as well as those emanating from Israel, as another expression of defiance of the Security Council and the law of nations. The act committed by Israel has aroused an uproar of indignation throughout the world. Mr. Tekoah’s outburst in the Council cannot drown out that uproar. If the Israeli Government, by its special laws, tries to put itself above the law, outside the law of the United Nations, this is indeed a grave matter. Governments, as in the case of the Govern- 66. This resolution speaks of the hijacking of a Lebanese civilian airliner by the Israeli air force. This is a perfect eat of State terrorism, conducted, as is stated in the third prearnbular paragraph, by Israel, a State Member of the United Nations. That act of hijacking, as I said, has aroused public indignation all over the world, and paragraph3 of the resolution opens the door wide for measures to be taken against any repetition of such an act by Israel; under that paragraph, this matter will be pursued at the proper time in ICAO when it next meets. 67. To give the Council only one further example of the indignation that this act of Israel has aroused around the world, let me read out a text that has just been brought to my attention, This is the text of a telegram sent by the Canadian Airline Pilots’ Association to Mr. Mitchell Sharp, Minister for External Affairs of Canada. Mr. Wright, t11e President of that Association, stated the following in that telegram: “The recent diversion of an Iraqi commercial flight by Israeli military planes over Lebanon was an act of unlawful interference with civil aviation. In accordance with the accepted norms of international law for the protection of aviation, the Canadian Airline Pilots Association requests that the Canadian Government obtain immediate assurances from the Government of the State of Israel that it will never again participate in or condone acts of interference with civil aviation. Should such rrn undertaking on the part of the State of Israel not IX forthcoming, we request that Canada suspend all corn mercial air services by Israeli aircraft to and from Canada until such assurances are obtained.” That is another expression of enlightened opinion around the world. 68. In paragraph 4 of the resolution, the Council warns Israel against the repetition of its acts against Lebanon. As I stated before, despite such warnings in the past Israel has repeated its attacks. It is only necessary to look at tke supplemental information distributed in, for instance, documents S/7930/Add.2081, 2082, 2084 and 208S-. covering the period of the last few days alone, that is, since the time Israel committed its abominable act-to see that the Israeli air force has been constantly violating Lebanon’s air space and sovereignty. Israeli planes have been flyirtg over Marjayoun, Nabatiye, Tibnine, Yaroun, and we no!e from the latest reports today that they have been flying over Sidon and the central part of Lebanon. They have been breaking the sound barrier and terrorizing the popu. lation of a peaceful country. These kinds of acts of terrar could continue indefinitely if the Council does not meet its responsibility in the event a serious act of aggression is again committed by Israel against Lebanon. 69. I understand Mr. Tekoah’s concern that the life of al! Israeli child is perhaps worth more than the integrity of 0111 air space or our territorial integrity. But our children wire 70. Mr. Tekoah protests because the Council has not taken action when some acts of violence have taken place now and then, here and there. I have proposed to him in the past, right here in the Council, that he should bring a case to the Council and take my place here as plaintiff. But he or his Government prefers to sit on the other side of the Council table always as the accused, as the aggressor, as the one who has breached international law. If Israel has any cases, let it bring them to the Council and challenge the Council to take action. 76. The representative of Lebanon knows very well that for years and years Israeli-Lebanese relations and the Israeli-Lebanese frontier were examples of tranquillity despite the fact that Palestinian refugees in large numbers had been living in camps of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) on Lebanese soil since 1948. This is a matter of fact, This is a fact of history. 71. I should like to conclude at this point by saying again that the Lebanese Government and people are grateful for the Council’s support of our case, for the clear warning given to Israel against a repetition of its acts. We trust that the Council’s resolutions will be respected and will no longer be treated with contempt. 77. It was only a few years ago-when Israel succeeded in eliminating terror within those areas held by it following the 1967 hostilities and when the Government of Jordan suppressed these murderous groups within its territorythat it was decided to move the bases of those groups to Lebanon, and it was only then that terrorist outrages from Lebanese territory began. It was not I, it was not an Israeli leader who defined those groups as an “army of occupation” in Lebanon. It was Lebanon’s President who said that. It was not I, it was not an Israeli representative or leader who spoke of the way these gangs exist in freedom, organize themselves and plot their murderous activities in complete freedom and without any hindrance as a state within the State. It was the President of Lebanon who, as recently as 5 May 1973, defined in those terms the same murderous groups that the representative of Lebanon comes before the Security Council to defend.

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

It is possible that the observations made by the representative of Lebanon regarding Israel’s not requesting a meeting of the Security Council might make some impression in the soaks of his capital, but he is speaking to representatives of Member States with sufficient memory to know that for years and years, in every single instance when Israel did appeal to the Security CounciI for action against armed attacks-whether by Arab regular armies or by Arab irregular forces or by terrorist gangs operating from the territories of Arab States-the result was complete helplessness on the part of the Security Council to rise above the application of the right of veto and automatic majorities and the fact that there are 18 Arab States Members of the United Nations, while it SO happens that there is only one Jewish State Member of this Organization. 78. The representative of Lebanon spoke of the death of Lebanese children. No Lebanese children, no Israeli children would have died or would be dying were it not for this policy, were it not, for these actions by the Arab Governments and were it not for the continued existence on their territories of organizations which openly wage a campaign of ruthless, merciless murder of children and other guiltless persons. Indeed it is high time to put an end to that; but the only way to do it is by terminating the existence of this army of occupation of the state within a State which continues to operate in freedom, with the connivance, with the full knowledge and with the support of the Lebanese and other Arab Governments. 74. The representative of Lebanon has once again tried tc explain the savage acts of violence and murder of innocent human beings by referring to the refugee situation and to the conditions resulting from the 1967 hostilities. Now, we have dealt with these matters and with these claims at length time and again. It would be sufficient for the representative of Lebanon to glance through the records of the Security Council in order to find all the answers to these unfounded allegations. 79. Ambassador Ghorra spoke of world public opinion, claiming that it is behind him, claiming that it approves what has been going on from Beirut as a base, centre and headquarters for barbaric atrocities in various parts of the world. Even Lebanese public opinion is not behind the case which he presented here, because only yesterday morning a 75. For, first of all, as I pointed out only yesterday f 1737th meeting], Arab terror dates back 50 years. The 80. Now, when a Lebanese newspaper is capable of understanding that if the arch-murderer George Habash was to be aboard the Lebanese plane, allowed to travel freely by the Lebanese Government, to go to Baghdad to plot further murders of innocent children, in such a case Israel was justified in trying to seize an assassin of this character, then surely Israel’s action of 10 August-if considered on its merits-can be understood and can be recognized as being justified and well-founded. 81. Ambassador Ghorra spoke of the conscience of mankind, of the Security Council being the expression of the conscience of mankind. Well, I will leave it to enlightened public opinion, to use the words of the representative of Lebanon, to decide whether an organ which, as I have indicated, for 25 years has not been able, because of the composition, structure and parliamentary balance of power, to adopt a single resolution condemning Arab aggression against Israel-not in 1948, not 1949 and not ever since then-whether an organ which for two and a half decades has been unable to rise above partisan views and condemn the murder of Israeli children, represents the conscience of mankind. 82. If there is a conscience of mankind, it certainly does not want to see the Habashes and the Arafats continue to operate freely on and from Lebanese territory. If there is a conscience of mankind, it certainly does not want to see these murderers roam freely all over the world, using Lebanon as their base, plotting to murder guiltless, helpless civilians. If there is a conscience of mankind, it demands that the Lebanese Government and other Arab Governments at long last put an end to the activities of these criminals, and eliminate once and for all their terrorist, barbaric organizations.

I call next on the representative of Lebanon to exercise his right of reply.

To conclude this debate, I shall make only a couple of remarks on what we have just heard from the Israeli representative. 85. Ambassador Tekoah wants me to look again at the verbatim records of meetings of the Security Council where we have discussed many aspects of the Middle East question. Well, we a11 know what we have discussed here; we know what has happened. But in his statements, such as those of Monday, yesterday and today, he always goes back and recalls nazism and the collaboration between some Arabs and the Nazis-Haj Amin El-Husseini, and so on and so forth; and these things have been repeated by him, brought out of his “deep-freeze”, hundreds of times. We know that his “deep-freeze” is full of speeches ready-made and tailored for every occasion in this Council, so WC do not have to go into that again. 87. May I also comment on this “automatic majority” ia the Security Council. We have the greatest respect for your Governments, Mr. President and members of the Security Council, and we know that you and your Governments represent your-people and the conscience of your countries, and that you represent, on a geographic basis, the con. science of the world. We are satisfied with that. 88. Mr. Tekoah wants the Palestinians to terminate their activities. I believe the Palestinians would be very happy to terminate all activities of this kind; but there is only one condition on which they can do so: that is by being allowed to return to their own homes. The Palestinians are not bad people; they are not murderers. The Palestinians are human beings like all of us; they have legitimate, inalienable rights, recognized by the United Nations in many resolutions, They have a right to their homeland and to their homes. 89. What does Mr. Tekoah want of us? Until a fevS years ago there had been no such activity of any kind on the part of the Palestinian people. Does he want them to rentain indefinitely in UNRWA camps, living on the doles handed out to them by the United Nations? 90. Peace can be served by Israel if and when Israel decides that justice should be done to the Palestinian people, and if and when the Israeli Government decides that it is time to withdraw its troops from Arab territories.

1 now call on the representative of Israel.

It is not my intention lc prolong this discussion; I have only one brief observation. If Ambassador Ghorra really has respect for members of the Security Council and their Governments, he must UIKI~P stand, I am sure, that the representatives around this table know that there is no relationship whatever between his description of the aims of the terrorist organizations headed by criminals such as Habash and Arafat and their real objectives. 93. Now, their real objectives are well known: they hare the so-called Palestinian Covenant which makes it vex clear-they have never concealed it; they have restated it again and again-that their aim is to eliminate the sovereiga State of Israel, a Member of the United Nations, aad tu annihilate its people. They might be ready, as they say ia their Covenant, to allow some Israelis to go back to the% countries in which their parents or grandparents were bon% but that is all. That is the objective. And it is of this objective, and it is of organizations that Uphold this the United Nations and butchering its people. list of speakers; the Council has thus concluded its discussion on the matter before it.

I call on the representative of Lebanon. The meetingrose at 5.10 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS Unite; Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores snd distributors throuyhout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sent en vente dans les librairies et les agences deposit&es du inondc entier. Informez-vous aupres de votre libraire ou sdressea-vous B : Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou Geneve. ICAIC IIOJ’IL,YYHTb HB/JAHMII OPI’AHH 3AI(HII[ Ol.S%EANHEHHhIX HAl[HFX 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, Section de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S, 1.00 (or equivalent in other currencies)