S/PV.1768 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken by the Council at the 1766th meeting, and with the consent of the Council, I propose to invite the representatives of Lebanon and Israel, under the relevant Article of the Charter and in accordance with rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Council, to participate in the Council’s discussion without the right to vote. At the invitation of the President, Mr. E. Ghorra (Lebanon) and Mr. Y. fekoah (Israel) took places at the Council table.

In addition, in accordance with the decision taken at the same meeting, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Syrian Arab Republic to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, under the relevant Article of the Charter and in accordance with rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. I request the representatives mentioned to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, on the At the invitation of the IFesident, Mr. A. E. Abdel Meguid (Egypt), Mr. A. Y. Bishara (Kuwait), Mr. J. Baroody (Saudi Arabia) and Mr. H. Kekmi (Syrian Arab Republic) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

It was almost exactly a year ago, on 21 April 1973 in fact, that the Security Council adopted resolution 332 (1973), in which it condemned “the repeated military attacks conducted by Israel against Lebanon and Israel’s violation of Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations, of the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon and of the Council’s ceasefire resolutions”. 4. In the same resolution the Council called upon Israel “to desist forthwith from all military attacks on Lebanon”. 5. Today we are confronted with a new case of Israeli incursion on Lebanese soil in reprisal for attacks perpetrated against Israeli citizens on Israeli territory. Our repudiation of those who perpetrated the bloody assault of Kiryat Shmona cannot be overstressed; but once again the Government of Israel has called upon its armed forces to carry out what is nothing other than a punitive act against Lebanon. Yet the responsibility of Lebanon for the attack of 11 April has not been established; and, even if it were established, it would not justify the acts of Israel. 6. No one denies to States their right to legitimate self-defence-this is set forth and provided for in the Charter of the United Nations-but we find it difficult to contend that this case can be described as one of legitimate self-defence in the terms generally recognized by States in international law and as set forth in the Charter. Furthermore, we cannot but deplore the recurring nature of these actions, which ignore a series of Council resolutions of which I have cited merely the most recent. 7. It is very difficult to avoid the aggravation of the historical situation now, whereas a few months ago the moment seemed propitious for negotiations and allowed us to foresee the possibility of a solution of the problem of the Middle East. This new disturbing element concerns us profoundly, since it increases the deterioration of the situation on the front that has occurred in the past few weeks. 9. The -Lebanese citizens captured by Israel must be returned and Israel must call off its presumed intentionaccording to its leaders’ declarations to the press-to repeat these futile and inexplicable.attacks against Lebanon. 10. The Peruvian delegation is ready to support any action within the Council’s competence to put an end to the situation created, ”

Mr. President, before proceeding to the item on our agenda, allow me to associate ‘myself with the warm words of sympathy spoken by you on the occasion of the death of Ambassador Taylor-Kamara of Sierra Leone. While my delegation did not enjoy the privilege of serving under him in this Chamber, we had on many occasions come to appreciate his outstanding capabilities as a diplomat and his great kindness and ‘warmth as a human being. May I, therefore, on behalf of my delegation, express sincere condolences to the Government and people of Sierra Leone and to all members of the Permanent Mission of his country. 12. We have listened to the debate of the past days in a ‘mood of. distress. and concern. Quite particularly, we have been saddened by the new tragic loss of innocent human lives on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese frontier. 13, ’ The reasons for the convening of this Council have been set out in the letter dated 13 April 1974 from the representative of Lebanon /S/II264/. According to that letter, during the night of 12/13 April’1974 Israeli armed forces launched, an attack against six villages situated in ‘southern Lebanon. The Council has been informed, furthermore, by the letter of the representative of Lebanon and by the Foreign Minister of Lebanon, Mr. Naffah, who has participated in our debate, that, as a result of this act of aggression, two Lebanese civilians were killed and others wounded, while 13 tibanese civilians were kidnapped and 3 1 houses destroyed. 14. These events are a matter of deep concern for my country, which has close and traditional bonds of friendship with Lebanon. We deplore this most recent instance of violation of Lebanon’s territorial sovereignty and integrity and we deplore threats of further action. 15. Yet, it would be inconceivable if this Council did not take into account at the same time the tragedy that has apparently provoked the military action undertaken by Israel;~ That this new violation of Lebanon’s territorial sovereignty and integrity should have followed the senseless massacre of women and children in Kiryat Shmona is a part of the tragic ‘mechanism’ of violence which has beset the countries and people of the Middle East for such a long time. 17. Under these circumstances it is certainly a legitimate question to ask whether the suffering of a people, bereaved by a quarter century of war and misery and the loss of a homestead, can really be mitigated by the infliction of random death and destruction on innocent people. It is perhaps also a legitimate question to ask whether indiscriminate acts of violence are really the best way to mob&e international support and sympathy for the cause of the Palestinian people. 18. -Gravely disturbed by this new outbreak of violence, my delegation can only repeat what has been stated on several occasions in expressing the feelings of the Austrian Government and people: clear and unequivucal condemnation of all acts of violence. 19. A parallel has been drawn between the events now before this Council and similar incidents one year ago. Yet, the particular gravity of the situation is demonstrated by the fact that the present incidents occurred only a short time after encouraging progress had been registered in the Middle East and when an atmosphere of beginning trust and goodwill on the part of all parties had become manifest. As was pointed out, furthermore, the situation appears to be all the more dangerous by the fact that not far from the scene of the tragic events on the Israeli-Lebanese border fighting of growing intensity and ominous dimensions continues to rage on the Golan Heights between Israel and Syria. 20. In an effort to break the dreadful spiral of terrorism and reprisals, violence and counter-violence, it appears imperative to place the events before this Council in a broader and wider perspective. 21. Much has been said in these days about the rights and duties of States to abide strictly by the rules of international law, the Charter of the United Nations and solemn declarations of our Organization. These are timely and useful reminders of mutual responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and they must not be discarded easily. 22. However, an equally heavy responsibility lies with this Council. In its efforts to safeguard the territorial sovereignty and integritv of Member States which bring grievances before this Council and in its effort to ensure the right of every States to be free from military attack, thus piotecting the life of its citizens, the Council will make an important contribution to the easing of tension that has arisen in the wake of the incidents that have been the subject of our debate. Everything must be done by this Council-and for that matter, by every party concerned-to prevent these events from gaining momentum and escalating further. The search for a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East must not be adversely affected by a new escalation of violence, localized as it may appear at the beginning. ’ 24. My delegation is hopeful that such a statement can come out of this Council and that it can be broadly based.

The Security Council has met once again to consider the criminal and aggressive actions of Israel against Lebanon. 26. The letters from the representative of Lebanon to the -Secretary-General [S/11263] and the President of the Security Council [S/l X264/, the statements of delegations and press reports depict the full horror of Israel’s naked act of aggression: the intrusion into the territory of Lebanon, the destruction of dwellings, the murder of peaceful citizens and the capture of hostages. These criminal actions by the Israeli militarists fall squarely within the deftition of aggression recently adopted by the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression. They are in flagrant violation of the Charter, the General Assembly resolutions on the non-use of force in international relations and on respect for sovereignty, and also of other decisions designed to ensure peace and security. 27. Israel is attempting to justify these actions by alleging that they are being undertaken in revenge for the liberation struggle which is being waged by the Palestinian people. On the strength of this, the Israeli troops crossed the Lebanese frontier, captured six villages, drove out their inhabitants, destroyed dozens of houses, murdered some peaceful inhabitants and took a large group of Lebanese citizens back to Israel as hostages. The same methods were employed by the fascist aggressors during the Second World War. They burned villages and murdered peaceful inhabitants or took them prisoner. 28. The same actions ‘&d the same style of the aggressor: surely the Israeli militarists know from the history of the struggle of peoples against oppressors that, so long as occupation exists, the patriotic struggle against the aggressor will also exist and operate. This struggle will be waged by individuals, groups and masses of the people until the original cause has been eliminated-aggression. 29. Therefore all attempts by the Israeli representatives to justify the reprisals-that is the incursions of their soldiery into the territory of sovereign States by way of retribution for what they allege to be the actions of the Arab fighters from Lebanese territory-should be disregarded. 30. In this connexion, in paragraph 4 of the letter from the representative of Lebanon to the Secretary-General “ . . . military reprisal and other grave violations of the cease-fire cannot be tolerated and.. . the Security Council would have to consider fuither and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against repetition of such acts.” 31. Against the background of the appreciable and tangible successes which have recently been won by the peace-loving forces, peoples and States in the struggle for the easing of international tension, the failure to reach a settlement in the Middle East is even more abnormal. The illegal occupation by Israel armed forces of Arab territories continues here, relations between Israel and the Arab countries are still strained to the utmost, and a state of war exists between them to this day. The situation in the Middle East rightly gives rise to serious concern. 32. In this connexion, we should like to draw attention to a certain inconsistency in what was said by one of the speakers here. On the one hand, he stated that international &tente is removing the peoples of the world from the danger of an outbreak of war-and we agree with this-but, on the other hand, he sees in detente and would like to find in it advantages of some kind for some at the expense of the interests of others. We emphatically cannot agree with the latter conclusion. If the peoples of the world have begun to look to the future with hope-and this is precisely what is being said in neighbouring meeting rooms-then it is only because of the first positive steps which are being taken towards dktente, and against this background the piratical and aggressive policy of the Israeli leadership looks even more ugly. 33. ‘Ihe responsibility for the situation which has arisen in the Middle East lies entirely with the Israeli aggressors. The leaders of Israel should know that adventurism in politics can produce only apparent successes and that in the final analysis a heavy price will inevitably have to be paid for it. 34. Only a long-term and just settlement in the Middle East, in accordance with the decisions of the United Nations on the subject, can ensure peace and security for all States in this region. “Peace in our view means the restoration of the lawful and inalienable rights -of the Arab peoples, which’have been flouted by Israeli aggression, and the constructive and lasting resolution of the Middle East crisis . . . “The decisions of the United Nations on the Middle East should be implemented fully in all their parts and in the shortest possible time.” 36. We consider that the agreement between Egypt and Israel on troop disengagement, achieved in connexion with the beginning of the work of the Geneva Peace Conference, is a positive step. But it is only a partial measure of a purely military nature and so far it involves only one of the Arab countries which have taken part in the hostilities. Of course, it is impossible to stop there. The Geneva Conference should fulfd its main mission, that of achieving a fundamental political settlement and of establishing lasting peace in the Middle East. 37; The joint Soviet-Syrian statement of 13 April 1974, signed by Mr. Brezhnev, and by Mr. Al-Assad, President of the Syrian Arab Republic and General-Secretary of the Ba’ath Arab Socialist Party, again firmly stressed that: “Peace and tranquility in the Middle East can be achieved only by the withdrawal of the lsraeli troops from all occupied Arab lands and the guarantee of the lawful national rights of the Arab people of Palestine.” Further on the statement stressed that: “The partial measures which are now being taken do not cover the fundamental key elements of a settlement: that any agreement on troop disengagement should be a component part of a general solution of the Middle East problem, and a step towards a radical and all-embracing settlement, at the very core of which should be the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all occupied Arab lands and the guarantee of the lawful rights of the Arab people of Palestine.” 38. The most recent incursion of Israel’s armed forces into Lebanese territory represents a continuation of the aggressive policy of the Israeli ruling circles. Israel’s political history consists entirely of the utilization of methods of mass and individual terror-from the bombing of schools and factories to barbarous raids on peaceful settlements in neighbouring Arab countries and the destruction in the air of civil aircraft carrying passengers. 39. Every day, every hour, the Israeli militarists are perpetrating aggression and terrorism against sovereign States. This is apparent from every report of the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO). One such report, dated 15 April 1974 [S/l1057/Add409], describes with an economy of words how during the period from 8 to 14 April 1974 “there was a marked increase in tension” in the Israel- 40. International public opinion indignantly condemns these actions of Israel. However, highly placed representatives of the Israeli leadership do not want to heed either international public opinion or the decisions of the United Nations, including those of the Security Council. It was precisely in this context that Israeli Defence Minister Dayan made a routine statement. As reported in i%e New York Times of 14 April 1974, he stated that Israel intends to turn southern Lebanon into a desert. I quote in English “The people will find it impossible to live there. Their homes will be destroyed and the whole area will be deserted.” This unprecedentedly cynical and arrogant statement cannot fail to alert world public opinion and should be taken into account in the formulation of a Security Council decision on the complaint by Lebanon which is under consideration. 41. In recent years the Council has repeatedly had to investigate the aggressive acts of Israel’s ruling clique against neighbouring Arab States. Over the last five years, the Council has considered questions connected with Israel’s aggressive actions against Lebanon more than 10 times. It has repeatedly taken decisions condemning Israel’s military attacks on Lebanese territory and calling on lsrael “to desist forthwith from all military attacks on Lebanon” [resolution 332 (I 9 73) para 31. 42. It can only be regretted that hitherto the Council has not been in a position to stop Israel’s aggressive actions and to take effective measures against it, so as not only to put an end to Israel’s brigandish attacks on neighbouring Arab States but also .to eliminate the consequences of Israeli aggression in gene ml. 43. We catenoricallv condemn Israel’s terrorist methods in international politics and its State terrorism. 44. Another noteworthy fact is the propaganda campaign which has been launched in Israel itself, where it is ceaselessly trumpeted that “the war has not ended” and that “the possibility of a new outbreak is quite likely”. Furthermore, the political and military leaders of Israel are trying to boost the morale of the Israeli population, which had perceptibly declined after the October war of 1973, and to overcome on a wave of chauvinism the internal difticulties experienced by the country and caused by the aggressive policy. 47. Time will not wait. The Council must take effective measures to halt the acts of plunder and aggression on the part of the Israeli militarists. The Byelorussian delegation is prepared to participate further in the Council’s efforts to work out and implement effective measures to counter Israel’s systematic and deliberate violations of United Nations resolutions and of the fundamental purposes and principles of the Organization.

There is an all too sadly familiar pattern to the happenings that have led to the complaint now brought before the Council by the Government of Lebanon. I like to think that most of us in this Council had come to believe at the end of 1973 and in the early months of this year that we had contributed appreciably towards a break-through in that most intractable of all our tasks, the long search for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. 49. The cease-fire that brought an end to the October fighting, the establishment of the United Nations Emergency Force, the launching of the Geneva Conference and the disengagement of forces in the Suez area-all these seemed to warrant a measure of cautious hope for continuing dialogue in an atmosphere of restraint and forbearance. 50. It is all the more disappointing, therefore, that we are having to address ourselves, for the third time in the past year, to a clash between Israel and Lebanon, again arising from acts of violence and retaliation involving both of them. It is depressing to have to be reminded at this time of words and phrases that we were using here a year ago in much the same context-expressions like “escalation of terror” and “State terror” and “the cycle of violence and reprisal”. 51. The most melancholy aspect of these latest incidents and of the consequential complaint that has been brought before us is that they revive all the acrimony and the vituperation of past years and thus must tend to reopen old 53. My own Government has repeatedly expressed its sympathy and concern over the situation of the refugees, and it fully recognizes that there can be no lasting settlement in the Middle East unless and until proper justice is done to them. 54. My delegation is bound to say, however, with a full understanding of the frustrations and the hardships they are suffering, that they do no service to their cause by acting on the scale of savagery of their assault on the innocent people of Kiryat Shmona. 55. The representatives of Lebanon and Israel have given us their own accounts of that attack. Their accounts differ to the extent of leaving us unable to feel completely convinced that the assailants entered Israel from Lebanese territory. If they did, my delegation would share the view expressed by the representative of the United Kingdom that the Government of Lebanon might be reminded of its international obligation to take all reasonable measures to prevent the organization on its territory of irregular forces for incursion into the territory of another State. 56. At the same time, and wherever the three assailants may have come from, the retaliatory action mounted by the Government of Israel against the villages on the Lebanese side of the border must lay itself open to censure as a violation of the Charter. 57. My Government has expressed at various times and in unequivocal terms its condemnation of all forms of violence directed against the lives and property of innocent people. As I recall saying in this chamber a year ago: “None of it can be condoned; it must all be deplored; whatever the degree of provocation offered from either side.” [I708th meeting, para. 107.1 And my delegation fully recognizes that the degree of provocation on this occasion was very great. 58. The Council must clearly accept its obligation to do everything in its power to bring these excesses to an end. This is a time for statesmanship and moderation and restraint on the part of all responsible authorities in and outside the Middle East, given all the understandable legacy of emotion that 25 years of bitter hostility has left behind. And it is our duty to say so in terms loud and clear. 59. We must also condemn all acts of violence and reprisal, which can only exacerbate tensions and threaten the precarious progress made towards a settlement over the past

I have no further names on my list of speakers. Some representatives have indicated that they wish to exercise their right of reply, and I propose to call on them at a later stage. In the meantime, and with the permission of the Council, I wish to make a statement in my capacity as representative of IRAQ. 61. The members of the Council have heard the complaint made by the representative of Lebanon against the Israeli armed incursion into Lebanon on the night of 12113 April. They have also heard the arguments of the Israeli representative in his attempt to justify the lawless act perpetrated by the Israeli armed forces. 62, There is little new in this case. Lebanon had resorted to the Council several times before, seeking its protection. In each and every previous case, the Israeli representative repeated the very same arguments in a desperate attempt to defend the acts of his Government committed in violation of the principles of the Charter. 63. The series of major acts of aggression against Lebanon began with the blowing-up of I3 civilian aircraft in Beirut International Airport in December 1968, and culminated in the raid on Beirut itself with the murder of several prominent Palestinian leaders in April 1973. In each and every previous case, except when one big Power abused its veto right, the Council never failed to live up to its duties and pronounce itself on those acts. In each and every past case the Council laid the blame squarely on Israel and warned it against the repetition of its lawless acts. Today the Council finds itself facing the same situation. 64. There is no need to review the events that led to the Lebanese complaint. The representative of Lebanon, in his opening statement, described what took place on the night of 12/13 April. The representative of Israel did not dispute the facts: indeed, he even glorified the lawless acts committed by the Israeli troops in their raid. In his attempt to justify those indefensible acts he repeated the self-same worn-out arguments which had never been accepted by the council. 65. The main Israeli argument has centred on the claim that the three persons involved in the Kiryat Shmona attack had crossed from Lebanon. Members of the Council are well aware that the only evidence presented in support of that claim is the statements of the representatives of Israel: hardly a conclusive piece of evidence. 66. Israel has never requested a United Nations inquiry to establish the facts; nor did it seek the aid of UNTSO personnel to corroborate its presumed findings; nor did it seek the judgement of the Council. On the contrary, Israel followed its established policy of aggressiveness, took the law into its own hands and arrogated to itself the dubious role of policeman, judge and executioner. 68. Only yesterday General Ariel Sharon, one of the leaders of the Opposition in the Israeli Knesset, criticising the government security arrangements at the borders, charged that Israel had been negligent in protecting Kiryat Shmona and demanded that the Government should not shirk its responsibility and should not try to put the blame on Lebanon. Yet General Moshe Dayan, according to today’s issue of 77re Jerusalem Post, which reported the debate, insisted in his reply that his Government will hold Lebanon responsible for alI acts of terror. 69. Members of the Council are well aware of the fact that this cycle of violence and violent reprisals has marked Israel’s policy towards Lebanon for a number of years. On each and every occasion that Israel has been brought before the Council to defend its aggression against Lebanon, it has emphatically stated that that is the only way to put an end to bloodshed. The months and years that have passed and the hundreds of lives that have been lost should surely have convinced the Council of the fallacy of such a claim and the futility of such a policy, even in revenge. Unfortunately, as the present event has shown, Israel is not yet convinced. 70. The loss of a single human life is sad and tragic. To be fair, however, and to be able to put an end to this cycle of violence, the Council has a duty to consider events within their proper context. The desperate acts of some Palestinians which have brought such murderous punishment upon Lebanon and which the Israeli representative is so fond of labelling as Arab terrorism must be considered in the light of the unprecedented tragedy of the people of Palestine and the profound repercussions throughout the Arab world. For that tragedy the Zionists must bear the primary guilt and responsibility. But none of us is completely blameless. The words of the eminent British historian ArnGld Toynbee are worthy of recall on this occasion. He said: “The Palestinian Arabs have an understandable vendetta against the Israelis, but they also have a grievance against all the rest of us. Half a century of massive indifference to their wrongs has had the same exasperating effect on them as a century of similar treatment has had on the black citizens of the United States, The Palestinians are now in the mood for sacrificing their lives if by wrecking the pillar they can bring the roof down on their Israeli enemies’ heads; and if the crashing masonry were incidentally to stave in the skulls of the rest of the human race, why should the Palestinian Arabs care? What have the rest of us done to deserve consideration from them? ” 71. It has become evident to the whole world, from which Israel has chosen to stand apart, that the end of violence and bloodshed, wars and destruction in the Middle East can be achieved only through the restitution of Palestinian rights. Nothing more is needed, and nothing less will be sufficient to achieve that noble and just end, which is the primary concern of the Council. 72. The representative of Israel has treated us to a tirade on Arab terrorism. Time and again he dwelt on that theme, which is but a consequence of the Zionists’ doing, in order to make the Council lose sight of the forest for the trees. But, members of the Council, let us deal with the Israeli representative on his own terms. Let us ask him about the horrendous atrocities committed by the Zionist terrorist gangs up to 1948 and the establishment of Israel. With your permission, let us seek his comment on the following examples. 74. Perhaps Mr. Tekoah may be so kind as to tell us in which Cabinet office, in which parliamentary room and in which command posts, the perpetrators of those crimes are now languishing? 73. On 25 November 1940, the steamship Path was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants.. On 24 February 1942, the steamship Struma exploded in the Black Sea, killing 769 Jewish immigrants. That incident was described by the Jewish Agency as an act of mass protests and mass suicide. On 6 November 1944, Lord Moyne, British Minister of State in the Middle East, was assassinated in Cairo by Stern Gang terrorists. In 1946, the King David Hotel was blown 75. If it is futile to wait for Mr. Tekoah’s opinion of those acts of terrorism, let us, at least, read what an American lady had to say about them. In a letter published in i’%e FVashingtm Post on 26 February of this year, Mrs. Donald Sharp writes: up by Irgun terrorists, killing 91 persons, mainly Arab and Jewish civil servants. ,From October 1946 to December 1947, letter bombs were sent by Irgun to British cabinet ministers and others. One person, Rex Far-ran, was murdered. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged. In 1948 occurred the Deir Yassin massacre of 254 unarmed Arab villagers by Irgun and Stem Gang terrorists. Menachem Begin, the leader of the Opposition Party in Israel was the leader of that raid. After 1948, the terror gangs became an army. The Haganah, the Stem Gang, the Irgun Zvei Leumi became the Israeli defence forces, the regular army of Israel. The gang leaders-Menachem Begin, Yegal Allon, Yesrael Galili and others-became Israeli statesmen, parliamentarians and generals. The terror policy of the gangs was thus elevated to State policy-methods unchanged, mentality unchanged and leaders unchanged. Just a few examples of the continuation of the methods and the mentality will suffice. In 1948, Bemadotte, United Nations mediator in Palestine, was assassinated by Stern Gang terrorists in Jerusalem. From 1948 to 1967 Arab villages were obliterated. During that period, 385 Arab villages were systematically obliterated within the territory of Israel. In 1953, Qibiya, a Jordanian village was attacked by half a battalion of Israeli troops, killing 42 villagers. Leader of the attack: no less than the present General Ariel Sharon. In 1956, Kafr Kassem. Forty-seven “If it is terrorism when Palestinians force world attention on their plight by desperate, deplorable acts, then it is terrorism when the Israeli army rolls over its northern border and kills 500 Lebanese villagers in their homes and fields to ‘teach them a lesson’, shoots down a Libyan airliner with more than 100 civilian deaths, or napalms an Egyptian school, killing more than 50 school children- “As for getting off Scot-free, there is the case of Menachem Begin, as bloody a terrorist as you would ever want to meet, who planned and executed the infamous Irgun massacre of 250 Arab men, women and children at the village of Deir Yassin in 1948 and tried to hide them s from the International Red Cross by dumping their / bodies down a well. This was part of a larger campaign of terror against Arab villages that continued over the years with the destruction of Karameh, Qibya (75 killed), Nahhalin (14 killed), Khan Yuis (46 killed), El-Buteiha, (50 killed), Qalqilya (49 killed), El Tawafiq, Sammu (18 killed), and others. And where is Menachem Begin now,” the lady asks? “In prison? In Kuwait? Why, no, he is head of the Likud Party in Israel, challenging Golda Meir for leadership of the country; and he appeared respectably on American TV interviews and at social functions in this country. 76. Recalling its resolutions 262 (1968) and 270 (1969), the Council in resolution 280 (1970) repeated its solemn warning to Israel that “if [the Israeli premeditated military actions against Lebanon) were to be repeated the Security Council would, in accordance with resolution 262 (1968) and the present resolution, consider taking adequate and effective steps or measures in accordance with the relevant Articles of the Charter to implement its resolutions”. 77. Needless to say that that was not the first occasion on which the Council solemnly warned Israel for its military actions against Lebanon. But what effective measure has the Council taken since then? Now, it would seem, is the time to put an end to Israel’s contempt and defiance of the Council’s authority. The time has now come for the Council to reassert its power and its will to act. It is high time now that the Council, instead of issuing more warnings, should decide upon specific and appropriate measures, to take adequate steps to bring about a decisive end to the cycle of violence that has plagued the Middle East since the creation of Israel, mainly as a result of Israeli premeditated acts of aggression, intimidation and terror. If it is our will to halt the vicious cycle of violence and bloodshed, then it is our duty to see to it that Israel shall respect and abide by the will of the international community . 78. Speaking as PRESIDENT. I call on the representative of Israel who wishes to exercise his right of reply.

I have asked to speak in order to exercise my right of reply to the representative of Byelorussia, a country which is encouraging Arab aggression against Israel, axid to the representative of Iraq which will go down in history as the country where innocent Jews were hanged in a Baghdad square and where the population was called upon by the Iraqi Government to feast and revel in that barbaric spectacle. 80. On 31 December 1968 the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the Security Council, at that time also representing the Byelorussian SSR, said in a debate concerning Israel’s action against terror warfare from Lebanon: “ . . . support given by a State to armed bands [to enter] another State must be regarded as an act of aggression. . . . However, no convincing arguments were adduced by Israel to show the responsibility of the Lebanese Government. . . . The Lebanese Government disclaims all part in that action.” /1462nd meeting, para. 511 81. Has not enough evidence been accumulated since 1968 to establish very clearly what is going on in Lebanon, what 82. If any other additional evidence is required by the representative of the Byeiorussian SSR, may I add the following. Kamal Jumblatt, leader of the Lebanese Progressive Socialist Party, a personality well known in the Soviet Union, a gentleman who has paid several visits to Moscow, a man who does not hide his support for Arab terrorism carried on from Lebanon-even he found it necessary to say the following only yesterday, 17 April 1974: “I oppose operations directed against civilians and in pati’cular children. I am not one of those who believe that the cause justifies the means. Certain Palestinian organizations were not faithful to the promises that Lebanese territory will not be used as a departure-point for fedayeen operations.” Now what else has to be said at this Security Council table to prove not only that those who murdered 18 innocent civilians in a little Israeli townlet only one kilometre from the Lebanese border came from Lebanese soil, but that Lebanon is in truth a centre of terrorist activities in the Middle East and in other parts of the world. 83. Is it not clear. Mr. Representative of the Byelorussian SSR, that by permitting the existence of such-centres of armed attacks, of acts of aggression against a neighbouring State, Lebanon is in fact, to use the term used by the Soviet representative, aiding these attacks against Israel, Israeli territory and Israeli civilians, and, according to the Soviet statement quoted by me, is therefore guilty of these continuous acts of aggression perpetrated from Lebanese territory. 84. These observations obviously apply also to the grotesque legal theory which we heard from the representative of Iraq, that a Government is not responsible for what goes on within its territory, that Lebanon cannot be held responsible for permitting the continuation, for years now, of the open operation of terrorist bands on and from its soil against a neighbouring State Member of the United Nations. 85. The representative of the Byelorussian SSR spoke of liberation of occupied territories. We know who the liberators are. The entire world knows who gentlemen like Arafat and Habash are. We still remember when they used 86. These are statements in the records of this very Security Council. These are the leaders of the movement which the representative of the Byelorussian SSR chooses to define as a liberation movement: killers of children, murderers of defenceless innocent human beings. And it is these people, these assassins, that are being received, with honour, in Moscow and in Minsk. It is these murderers who are being received for medical treatment in Soviet hospitals. Soviet scientists are being sent to mental homes. Innocent Jews begging to leave for Israel are being incarcerated in labour camps. But murderers of children are being treated in Soviet hospitals-

I wish to speak on a point of order.

I call upon the representative of the USSR on a point of order

I should like to draw the President’s attention to the fact that the representative of Israel is abusing the right of reply and is not speaking to the point. He is engaging in gross interference in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union and is also making comments which bear no relation to the agenda of this meeting.

I with to draw the attention of the representative of Israel to the fact that he should confine himself to matters on the agenda of this meeting. He may proceed now.

Continuing to exercise my right of reply to the wide-ranging statements made by the speakers to whom I am responding, I should like to add that the official representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization-the umbrella association of all the terrorist organizations, the organization headed by Arafat, received SO joyously and honourably in the Soviet Union-a man called Said Hammami, wrote the following letter to 77zhe Times of London, a letter which was published in that newspaper on 16 April 1974, and had the following comment about Kiryat Shmona, the murder of the innocents, an act called here by the representative of the Byelorussian SSR an act of liberation: “The death of 18 Israelis and 3 Arabs in that settlement last Thursday carries different lessons to different parties. To the Palestinians, especially those in refugee camps, it has one obvious meaning: if the world is going to forget about us, we are going to ignore it and carry on our suicide missions.” This is the kind of movement we are dealing with. This is what we in Israel have to confront. I have spoken at previous meetings about the denial by the Palestine Liberation Organization and its various branches of Israel’s fundamental right to be independent and sovereign, the denial to the Jewish people of its basic right to self-determination and national liberation. And here we have the 92. The General Representative of the International Union of Resistance and Deportees Movements had the following to say on 15 April 1968 about this kind of blasphemy: “‘We denounce those who insult the memory of the Jewish dead, of the camps and the resistance, by comparing the children of Israel of today with the Nazi oppressors or by likening the terrorists who attack innocent men, women and children to the heroes of the European Resistance.” 93. At its plenary session in Brussels, held from 3 to 7 April 1968, with the participation of distinguished delegations from countries like Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, the United States, Luxembourg, Israel, Italy, Norway, and the Netherlands, the International Union of Resistance and Deportees Movements adopted the following resolution: “No one can compare the spirit of resistance with the terrorist activities and odious and blind crimes intended to provoke fear and insecurity, to give rise to violence, when all possibilities are openly offered for an open discussion, or try to compare with the resistance against Nazism the fanatics surrounded by former Nazi criminals who merely prolong the Hitler genocide and thereby offer an insult which is felt deeply not only by the citizens of Israel, who courageously fight for their right to life, but by all those who resisted and who remain true to themselves.” 94. I would add to that statement and to that resolution that the comparison made by the representative of the Byelorussian SSR with Fascists, with Nazis, is an insult not only to those who spoke as they did on behalf of the international resistance movements and deportees, not only to the children of Israel, not only to the entire Jewish people, who lost 6 million brothers and sisters in the Nazi holocaust; it is an insult also to the Byelorussian SSR and to its people and to its resistance fighters, among them many Jews, who fought heroically against Nazi occupation in the Second World War. 95. Why does the representative of the Byelorussian SSR come here with such eagerness to speak at such length in the language of slander and calumny? Perhaps the answer is to be found in a cablegram which reached me only today and which reads as follows: “With great pain we received the news of the terrorist attack on the peaceful residents of Israel killing women and children. Our hearts go out to the people during this difficult time. We are without rights in the Soviet Union and are treated like prisoners. They are withholding our

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

I again appeal to the President urgently to call the representative of Israel to order and to warn him that he should adhere strictly to the procedure and agenda of this meeting and not refer to questions which bear no relation to the matter under discussion.

I wish to be as fair as possible to all the speakers, but I must again point out to the representative of Israel that he is straying from the item under consideration and ask him to confine his remarks to what is under discussion. He may now proceed.

Continuing to exercise my right of reply to statements which ranged from the item on the agenda to the internal mood in Israel, to problems of war and peace facing the Middle East and the world at large, I should like to be permitted to end my statement without any further interruption, from whatever source. 100. The cablegram which I just read out is signed by the following citizens of Novosibirsk: Alexander Roizman, Raya Roizman, Isaac Poltinnikov, Irma Bernstein, Victoria Poltinnikova and Gimel Manuel Feinberg-citizens of the USSR. Therefore I shall end my reply to the representative of the Byelorussian SSR by saying simply: as long as you encourage Arab aggression against Israel, as long as by your acts and pronouncements you give succour to the murderers of innocent Israeli children and women and men, as long as your country provides weapons to kill defenceless Jewish civilians, as long as it provides SAM VII missiles which turn up in Rome aimed at international civil aircraft, your advice on how Israel should defend itself is not only inappropriate but completely worthless. 101. The fundamental right of every people, of every State, is also the fundamental right of the people of Israel and of the Jewish State, and that is the right to selfdefence, to self-preservation and to survival. It is in accordance with this right that Israel will continue to act to protect its territory and its citizens. 102. In my opening statement on 15 April /1766th meeting/ I declared that all were aware of the inherent parliamentary imbalance prevailing in the Council and in other organs of the United Nations in discussions regarding the Middle East situation. Nothing could have demonstrated that fact more convincingly than today’s statement by the representative of Iraq. 103. On 21 October 1973, I declared in this Council: “ . . . I did not mention something which took place in our Organization last week and which directly concerns the Security Council. I refer to Iraq’s election on 15 October to membership of the Security Council of the United Nations. , “For the last 25 years, since the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948 in defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has pursued war against Israel, refusing to sign the armistice of 1949, which had been sponsored by the Security Council, and actively supporting terror warfare against Israel, and joining in the Egyptian-Syrian aggression of 6 October 1973. Throughout this period Iraq has openly proclaimed its objective to be the total destruction of a Member State and the denial to the Jewish people of Israel of its right to self-determination and freedom. “The election of Iraq to this Council, only a few days after it had resumed active aggression, again illustrates the shortcomings and failings of the General Assembly and the Security Council in matters concerning the Middle East.” [I 747th meeting, paras. 71- 741 104. Today I would add that the Government of Iraq, whose representative presides over these deliberations, is not representative of the population of Iraq. He certainly does not represent the 2.5 million Kurds who are being subjected to air and ground attacks, including the use of gas, in an attempt to deprive them of their national rights. 105. How, Iraq, a party to the conflict in the Middle East, not only presides over the Security Council but has no qualms whatever about defiling this high office and jumping into the ring, even before certain other members of the Council, to revel in the sword dance of belligerency and hatred in macabre glorification of the Kiryat Shmona massacre. The world should fully understand this situation. It should be reminded what Iraq is and what it stands for. Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated in an interview published on 28 January 1973: “One mistake cannot be corrected by another. Israel must be eliminated.” 106. Reacting to resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, the resolution which called for a cease-fire and for peace negotiations in the Middle East, the Iraqi govemmental news agency issued-on the same day-the following statement: “The Government of Iraq has announced that Iraq does not regard itself a party to any resolution, step or arrangement in armistice agreements, cease-fire, negotiations and peace with Israel which have been made or will be made in the future.” 107. Only a few weeks ago, Iraq caused the following to be introduced into the report of the Credentials Committee of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, held at Geneva-and I quote from the report of the Credentials Committee: “The delegate of Iraq . . . added that he considered the existence of Israel as a permanent aggression against Arab 108. Iraq’s reaction to the Kiryat Shmona massacre of 11 April came in the following statement by Radio Baghdad on the day after the massacre: “This operation emphasized once again the ability of the Arab people to force its will and to continue the armed struggle.” 109. Let the world know, therefore, that the Lebanese complaint is being discussed in this Council in circumstances which verge on a travesty of equity and law. It is not surprising at all that in this atmosphere Arab representatives permit themselves to make here some of the most warlike pronouncements heard in recent months. 110. Today is Martyrs’ Day, commemorating the victims of the Nazi holocaust. Today, Jews everywhere pay a tribute to the memory of 6 million of their brothers and sisters, mercilessly annihilated, among them almost 2 million children. It is on this day that the representative of the heirs of the Nazi attitude towards the Jewish people’s rights chose to justify the killing of Jewish children in Israel. 111. Efforts are being made now to advance the cause of pacific settlement in the Middle East. This is the time that the President of the Security Council has chosen to express support for continued belligerency against Israel. 112. These facts strengthen the view that Iraq is not suitable for membership on the Security Council, and even less for the presidency of this body. My delegation calls, consequently, on members of the Security Council to remove Iraq from presiding over the Council’s present deliberations. This is the least that the Council should properly do under the present circumstances.

Members of the Council are well aware that the Israeli representative has raised some contentious matters that are completely out of the scope of this discussion. Some of his remarks were addressed to my Government and to me. I would certainly have raised a point of order had I not been sitting in this Chair; however, I allowed him to continue his tirade, to which I shall reply at the proper time. 114. The next representative who wishes to exercise the right of reply is the representative of Lebanon, on whom I now call.

I wish to draw the attentionof the Council to document S/Agenda/I768, dated l’/ April 1974, item 2 of which reads: “The situation in the Middle East: “Letter dated 13 April 1974 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/ 11264).” 117. Returning to our complaint, I should like once more to remind the Council of the following. At the last meeting I referred to the fact that we have United Nations observers in Lebanon and that these observers have not reported to the Council any infraction on the part of Lebanon. The observers are unbiased; they are there in the Council’s name, fulfilling a mission on its behalf. The Council put them there to observe-to observe and report back to it. We have asked the Council to do that in good faith because we wanted to co-operate with the Council and with the international community in order to promote conditions of peace and security in the area. 118. Since the beginning of 1974, Israel has daily committed acts of aggression against Lebanon, as shown in the reports submitted by the Chief of Staff of UNTSO to the Secretary-General, in documents from document S/l 1057/ Add.1, dated 1 January 1974-long before the Kiryat Shmona incident-up to document S/l 1057/Add-409, dated 15 April 1974, and subsequent ones. Since the beginning of 1974 we have submitted more than 100 complaints to the United Nations observers in which we set forth the violations of Lebanese air space and territorial waters by Israel. We also submitted complaints regarding infiltration of Lebanon’s territory and the temporary occupation by Israel of Lebanese territory. Israel has also attacked with its artillery and mortar guns many of the Lebanese villages at the border. All these complaints submitted by Lebanon have been confirmed by the United Nations observers. In addition, all the aforementioned reports by the United Nations observers do not mention any particular instance of infiltration from Lebanese territory into Israel. 119. Furthermore, the air space of Lebanon is being violated every day. Is that done to observe the activities of the fedayeen? What does that have to do with the incident of Kiryat Shmona? Is this to be tolerated? Is the constant shelling of our border-towns and towns a matter connected with the Kiryat Shmona operation? Israelis in the past have attacked Lebanese towns. They have attacked the Pales- 120. And Mr. Dayan promises us some more. Mr. Tekoah had the audacity to put in the records of the Security Council the threats of Mr. Dayan, but after he expunged from them some of their ominous references. I should like the record to show some of his statements very clearly. I shall refer to 77ze New York Times of 14 April 1974, which reports Mr. Dayan as follows: “The people will find it impossible to live there”, ‘the Defense Minister said’. “Their homes will be destroyed and the whole area will be deserted.” He added: “If we cannot live in peace on our side of the border, then eventually the entire southern part of Lebanon won’t be able to live in peace.” “Lebanon”, he said, “will find itself in a situation like what happened in the Jordan Valley in the past when the Jordanian Government was forced to abandon the whole area.” Israel has a record of aggression and murderous acts and of turning fertile lands, rich lands, into wastelands. The report continued: “Mr. Dayan added: “ ‘We tried to do this in a civilized manner* “-1 have referred and commented on the kind of civilization tha& Mr. Dayan and his Government are bringing to our midst in the Middle East-adding that if some persons had been killed, as the Lebanese radio reported this morning,-“ ‘it was just by sheer accident’.” Naturally, Mr. Dayan’s forces were not there to kii; he sent hordes of his troops there only to destroy without killing, as if the destruction of homes of peaceful peasants and townspeople did not entail any killing or any injury in its wake. 121. I referred at our last meeting to the concoctions of the Israelis trying to build a case that three persons who perpetrated the act of Kiryat Shmona came from Lebanon. Mr. Tekoah, in his statement before the Council, mentioned the fact that an Israeli patrol followed the footsteps of these persons and discovered that they had gone to Kiryat Shmona and that by the time the patrol reached Kiryat Shmona the operation was already in progress. I mentioned that already at 9 o’clock radio Israel was saying that they did not know where these perpetrators came from. At 10 122. Well, that was a concoction. The whole thing was a story put up, made up later on In order to sell this big Iie to the world, to exploit the sympathy of the people and. to find a culprit and to take revenge against someone. We have to pay a price. Why do we have to pay a price? Because the Israeli Government is in difficulty with its own people; because the people in Israel are furious with the policy of its Government which was not taking enough security measures for the protection of the people. The Government was resigning; the people were in turmoil; the Government had to divert the attention and the emotions of the people by pointing the finger of accusation against Lebanon and directing its anger at the peaceful country of Lebanon. 123. I should like to remind the members of the Council of the declaration issued on the Middle East and the question of Palestine by the Fourth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries meeting in Algiers from 19 to 21 March 1974. The Bureau of the Conference stated, in its paragraph 3, the following regarding the Middle East and the question of Palestine: “The non-aligned countries note ‘with concern that Israel has not drawn the lessons it should have drawn from the October war. Though the October war has destroyed the military Zionist arrogance, Israel’s leaders still continue to pursue a policy of aggression, annexation of territory and deprivation of the .Arab people of its fundamental rights and sovereignty over its territory.” Further, in paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (b), the declaration stated that one of the fundamental prerequisites for peace was “the restoration of the Palestine people’s national rights, foremost among which is the right to return to its homeland and exercise its right to self-determination”. 124. The Palestinian people who have lived in Lebanon for 25 years have suffered long enough. They are entitled to a resolution and a solution of their problem. Israel must get that message. It failed to get the message from the war of 1973. It continues its expeditions and its campaign of terror against Lebanon and its peaceful citizens. But some of the Israeli people seem to have got the message. Now in Israel, they are talking about what they call yiridu. I refer to i%e New York Post of 8 April 1974, which stated that yirida is a Hebrew word which means literally going down. But what it means is to emigrate from Israel. It is the opposite of uliyu-going up to Zion, to immigrate to Israel. Yet ever since the October war more and more Israelis are talking about yirida. A survey conducted by the newspaper Haaretz demonstrates that 11.6 per cent of the Israelis are considering leaving the country. Leaving the country because of what? Because of the kind of security, the kind of peace the leaders, the Zionist pioneers, have promised the Jews who have immigrated to Israel. This message is demonstrative of the temper of the people in Israel, who have been led and misled by leaders who have established the policy of Israel on the basis of war. And Mr. Tekoah has 125. Beirut and Lebanon, a capital and a country known to be a centre of education, culture, international contacts, freedom of information, tourism and trade, are being turned-according to Mr. Tekoah and the Israeli propaganda machine-into a terrorist centre of the world. That, as I said before, is a charge worthy not only of laughter but of disdain. A country like Lebanon, where we are building a society on the basis of tolerance and on the basis of harmony among various communities, is being accused by a representative of a country based on exclusivism as a country of terror. It is being accused by the representative of a country which was born out of terror and which has conducted a campaign of terror for the last 25 years against the Arab peoples and the Arab States. 126. Mr. Tekoah mentioned the other day that until 1967 everything was going very nicely; everything was lovely; there were no incidents on the borders of Lebanon; no actions, no reprisals. But Mr. Tekoah forgets a very historic fact: that on 5 June 1967 Israel launched its murderous assault and aggression against the Arab States and occupied some of their territories-and it occupies them to this day. That cycle of violence to which Israel had resorted in the pad was repeated again in 1967, and that set the whole Arab people-and first and foremost, the Palestinian people-in motion in their struggle against the aggression of Israel. On 28 December 1968, out of the blue, for no reason at all, Israel attacked the airport of Beirut and set in motion that cycle of violence and terror against Lebanon. 127. In the past I have asked and advised Mr. Tekoah to go and tell his Government and his people that they have one course if they want to live in peace and harmony with the peoples of the Middle East: that is to scrap their plans of aggression and to set themselves on a course that will lead them to peace-the course of refraining from their attacks and from their threats to use force. 128. Lebanon, as is known to everyone around this table, has in the past done everything in its power to promote conditions conducive to peace in the Middle East. We have helped and encouraged every effort and every initiative taken in that direction. Lebanon could not be accused of being a party either to terror or to wars. Lebanon has set itself the goal of serving the cause of peace and of being a useful Member of the United Nations; and on that basis we act. 129. Finally, I should like to state our position very clearly before the Council today. We have come to you for justice. I have mentioned that resolutions alone do not satisfy us; that action by the Council should be taken to restrain Israel from carrying out its policy of aggression against Lebanon. We hope that the Council will find the way to warn Israel against the repetition of its attacks against Lebanon, to condemn very strongly its action and

The next name on my list of representatives wishing to exercise the right of reply is that of the representative of the Byelorussian SSR, on whom I now call.

In exercising my right of reply, I should like to make several points. Firstly, our delegation considers it inadmissible that the representative of Israel should use his right of reply every time to slander the policies of other States-the policies of States members of the Security Council-in order to expound Zionist propaganda in the Council and in United Nations bodies. Not only is Israel acting in a piratical manner in relation to neighbouring Arab States, but its representatives want to bring the methods of piracy and terrorism into the Council. The representative of Israel has demanded the removal of certain members of the Council and the replacement of its President. Who gave him the right to do that? Although Israel is supported by some individual members of the Council, that still does not mean that Israel can indulge in piracy in the Council. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR categorically protests against such conduct by the representative of Israel in the Security Council. 132. Secondly, the representative of Israel did not like the comparison made between Israel’s piratical actions in relation to the peoples of neighbouring Arab States and the actions of the Fascists against the peoples of many countries during the Second World War. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR insists on this comparison. It is not we who are to blame for this comparison, but the policy of Israel, which has armed itself with some inhuman Fascist methods in the struggle against the Arab peoples in this area. They have merely affixed a new label to these actions-not “Fascist” but “Zionist”. 133. The representative of Iraq cited a whole list of the genuinely Fascist methods which Israel has employed against the Arab peoples in this area. I endorse this list and would simply like to ask one question: why was it that literally from the first days and even before Israel’s formation, before the adoption by the United Nations of the decision to create the State of Israel, actions similar to Fascist actions, organized by Zionist circles in that area, had begun and were continued? 134. On 9 April 1948, Jewish terrorists committed a massacre in the Arab village of Deir Yassin and most of its inhabitants perished, Including women and children. What is this-is it Fascism or Zionism? The answer is that they are the same. The style is the same-the style of the aggressor. 135. In the course of the hostilities which began on 15 May 1948, Israeli troops drove out the Arab population en masse and seized their property. The American writer O’Ballance writes: “It was precisely the policy of the Jews which made the Arabs abandon their homes. Later, when the war was at its height, they began to drive out those Arabs who had still remained in their villages.” 137. Such accounts are legion. Is this not similar to Fascist methods of operation? Is this not Fascism? During the Palestinian war, the Israeli troops destroyed a considerable number of Arab dwellings so that the Arabs could not return to them. Is this not Fascism? Is this not similar to the activities of the Fascists? The Palestinian was led to a situation in which the Arab State proclaimed by a decision of the United Nations was not in fact set up, and a major part of it was annexed to Israel by force. Are these not Fascist actions? 138. According to UNRWA data, by 31 May 1967 the number of Arab refugees had reached 1,344,576. According to the estimates of the same Agency, the Israeli aggression in 1967 created more than 350,000 other refugees. That made nearly 2 million refugees. 139. We know very well what refugees are in relation to Fascist aggression. Are these not similar to Fascist methods? I repeat, it is not we who are to blame for this comparison: the policy of Israel, which has armed itself with Fascist methods, is to blame. As reality has shown, Tel Aviv in its relations with its neighbours is placing its reliance on force, is doing everything possible to avoid a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and is sabotaging the efforts being made by the peace-loving countries and forces to that end. 140. The representative of Israel is trying to teach other members of the Security Council how they should conduct themselves. He has apparently forgotten that the Council has met to consider Israel’s aggressive measures against Lebanon and to demand an end to the policy of international brigandage practised by Tel Aviv. 141. Finally, the attempts of the representative of Israel to cast aspersions on the Byelorussian SSR-which lost a quarter of its population during the Second World War in struggling for its liberation and thus, together with all the peoples of the Soviet Union, made a substantial contribution to the rout of fascism-are unworthy and sacrilegious. Two and a half million of my compatriots gave their lives for the survival of today’s citizens of the countries of Europe and of the whole world, including Israel. 142. It is the duty of the Security Council finally to compel Israel, whose representatives once solemnly swore to respect the provisions of the Charter, to renounce its adventuristic and obstructionist policy in questions concerning a Middle East settlement. 143. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR repeats that it has so far taken an active part in the work of the Security Council in its consideration of the complaint made by Lebanon, and it will continue to participate actively SO as to put an end to Israel’s aggressive and piratical acts against the peoples of the neighbouring Arab States.

In connexion with the Israeli representative’s reference to the Soviet representative’s statement in the Security Council during consideration of a similar complaint by Lebanon about Israel’s aggressive actions against it, we should like to stress that since the time when that statement was made nothing has happened which could alter our opinion that Lebanon, the people of Lebanon and the Government of Lebanon bear no responsibility for the actions of any persons or groups of persons against Israel. This was once again convincingly demonstrated both in the letter of 12 April from the representative of Lebanon, in Ambassador Ghorra’s statement at the 1767th meeting, on 16 April, and in his statement today. In particular, the letter /S/11263/ states that: “Reports submitted by the United Nations observers to the Security Council through the Secretary-General do not contain any contention that any infiltration has taken place from Lebanon into Israel. This also has been confirmed through the consultations that the Lebanese authorities had with the observers regarding their observation, who did not record any activity or infiltration during this week along the Lebanese border.” It also mentions other facts which quite clearly demonstrate that the Government of Lebanon and the Lebanese people cannot bear any responsibility for the actions of persons who are not Lebanese. 146. Why should we fail to believe or cast any doubt whatsoever on the statements of responsible representatives of the State of Lebanon, and why should we believe the unsubstantiated assertions of the representative of Israel here? The representative of Israel is trying everything possible, but entirely unsuccessfully, to refute the statements of the Lebanese representatives, and in doing so he is referring quite unjustifiably to earlier statements made here by the representative of the Soviet Union. 147. The Soviet delegation would like to express its indignation and anger at the attacks made by the Israeli representative, unprecedented in their arrogance, on you as the President of the Security Council and on your country. We should like to express our solidarity with you, and also to assure you of our unswerving support. It seems to us that, in making such insolent and, I would say, provocative attacks against members of the Security Council, sovereign States and their representatives, the representative of Israel has gone beyond all tolerable limits. We feel that, if he is going to act in this way in the future and indulge in slanderous attacks against members of the Council and against the President of the Council, the Council will be entitled to consider the question of depriving the representative of Israel of the right to speak, or not granting it to him, in the discussion of this question.

I now call on the representative of Lebanon.

I now call on the representative of Israel.

The representative of the Soviet Union read from a document, a letter submitted to the Secretary-General by the representative of Lebanon and then asked the question why should we not trust what is written in that letter-a letter, by the way, in response to complaints made by Israel regarding the massacre at Kiryat Shmona. The answer is very simple. The answer was given not by me but by the then President of Lebanon, who said on 1 July 1969: “Lebanon had stressed in the Security Council that there were no saboteur bases on its territory so as to obtain a condemnation of Israel by the Council.” 152. I had the opportunity only the day before yesterday to indicate that Lebanon speaks with two voices, one here when its representative demands, calls for, suggests, the adoption by the Security Council once again of a one-sided inequitable condemnation of Israel’s defence action, and another voice, the voice of its leaders, including its President, its Minister of Defence, its Prime Minister, leaders of the opposition, parliamentarians, who openly speak of the new vocation of Lebanon-developed in the course of the last few years, and not immediately after the 1967 hostilities, as the representative of Lebanon suggested-the vocation of being the centre of international terrorism and banditry. Lebanon became such a centre when some other Arab Governments decided that it was most convenient to have terrorist operations out of Lebanese territory rather than from their own soil. 153. As for the brief statement by the representative of the Byelorussian SSR I saw him reading from what appeared to me to be a book, and at certain moments I thought this must be either Kafka or at least Orwell. Because it is clear that apparently in his view right is wrong, wrong is right. Justice becomes injustice. A liberation movement like zionism-the love of Zion, the struggle for centuries of the Jewish people to attain equality with other nations, freedom, independence, sovereignty-is an antiliberation movement, but the murder of innocent civilians, men, women and children, is liberation. 154. In speaking in that manner, it was he-and I am very sorry to say this-who was following in the footsteps of the Nazis, because all of us, I think, still remember what they did. And I am not referring to the slogans on the concentration camps-how they used terms like “Labour makes free”. That was the inscription which those con- 1.55. The representative of Lebanon reiterated his previous statements. It was nothing new. There are so many replies which could be given to every single point made by him-not in my words, not in my arguments, but in statements made by his own leaders. I have done this previously. I added a statement by a Lebanese leader from an entirely different group, highly considered in the Soviet Union. 156. Today, in response to his reiteration of the accusations of Israel’s alleged intentions, purposes and designs on Lebanon, I should like to read a brief statement by His Beatitude the Patriarch of Antioch and the entire East, who, on 28 September 1972, declared, according to the Lebanese newspaper El Bairak, and in an interview given to that particular daily, later reprinted by another Beirut news paper El Jarida: “The Israelis do not want Lebanon. I know them well. No one knows them better than I do. I was in contact with them over a long period when I was head of the Patriarchate of Tyre in the south. I have in my possession information which proves that, through international institutions, Israel has frequently tried to explain to those responsible in Lebanon that Israel wishes Lebanon no harm, provided that the fedayeen withdraw from the country. But how does the proverb go: ‘To whom can one read your psalms, 0 David? ’ ” 157. Ambassador Ghorra’s solicitude for Israel and the people of Israel and the size of its population is almost touching. He referred to the percentage of Israelis who are considering emigration from Israel. It is interesting that these percentages are lower than the percentage of citizens of a country like the United States who are considering emigrating from the United States. 158. Now what does it prove? As far as I remember, a typical country of immigration, like Australia-a distinguished member of the Security Council-has approximately 15 per cent of its immigrants leaving the country, going back to the places from which they had come. What does it prove? The true situation is that there have been more Israelis that have been studying abroad, teaching abroad, working abroad, trying to return to Israel in recent months, including Israelis from this very country, than ever before. The fact remains that immigration to Israel continues, that the struggle for the right of Jews in certain parts of the world-where they are still being prevented 160. He said that according to the Israeli reports footprints crossing the Israeli-Lebanese border were discovered early in the morning of 11 April. True. These footprints were followed. It is not easy to follow footprints on rocky ground, on hilly ground, and the representative of Lebanon probably knows the southern part of his country, the northern part of mine. These footprints were followed to Kiryat Shmona. True again. By the time the patrol arrived in the little townlet the shooting was already going on. True, Ambassador Ghorra. At that time, the Israeli radio broadcast for the first time that there was shooting going on in Kiryat Shmona and that people, innocent people, were being murdered. Perhaps in his country it is possible to know in advance who is killing whom and from where the killers have come. Not in mine. 161. So the first radio broadcast, as correctly stated by him, at 9 o’clock in the morning, simply gave the tragic news of the attack in the little town. And this was repeated, as he pointed out, at 10 o’clock. It was only in the 11 o’clock broadcast, when the report of the border patrol was received about the footprints and the fence cut by the murderers, who had crossed from Lebanon into Israel, it was only when that report was sent on to the authorities, and from them to the radio station, that for the first time we were in a position, on the basis of evidence available, to announce that the murderers had come from Lebanon. This was corroborated not only by the facts that their shoes matched fully the footprints, but also by the statements which were being issued in Beirut at the time when the Israeli radio was still not attributing any responsibility to the Lebanese .Govemment. Beirut was already issuing announcements, and sending them all over the world, that an organization based in Lebanon had organized and carried out the savage slaughter. At that very time, that organization in Beirut knew already who the murderers were and issued a statement giving details of their names and their biographies, and published a photograph of the three -taken where? In Tel Aviv, or in Beirut before their mission? -a photograph which has been published all over the world in the meantime. 162. After all this development we still hear that it is not clear where these assassins had come from. After all this evidence, we still hear that the Government of Lebanon is perhaps not responsible for the situation which has obtained in its country for years now and that every visitor to Beirut is aware of, that every correspondent who wishes to go there can report on. Are not the facts clear and incontrovertible? 164. Ambassador Ghorra said “Lebanon is not a party to terror”. It is more than that. It is a party to a governmental agreement signed officially in Cairo with the terrorist organizations-I have quoted from it-giving the terrorist groupings freedom of action on and from Lebanese territory. It is an accomplice. It must be held responsible for the continuation of such acts of aggression, such savage atrocities. It will be held so responsible.

I now call on the representative of Lebanon.

Now we hear again, in rebuttal, the new concoction, the big lie, that has been put forward by Israel and that has been repeated over and over again, that there was evidence that the three perpetrators of the action of Kiryat Shmona had gone from Lebanon. The Israelis claim-and there is nothing to substantiate their claim-that the wire was cut somewhere on the Lebanese border and that through that cut the three had infiltrated and that the Israeli patrol had followed the footsteps of those three in that rugged country, which I know very well, where footsteps could be lost very easily. They claim they followed those footsteps to Kiryat Shmona and that after they matched the shoes of the victims who were in the building still, they matched the shoes of those three persons with the footsteps and they discovered that <the three people had come from Lebanon. What a big he. It takes gullible people to believe such a story, only gullible people. Photographs were taken in Beirut of the three people. Because photographs were published in Beirut, as they were published throughout Lebanon, we have evidence that the photographs were taken in Beirut before the three persons set out on their mission. What evidence. I do not think Mr. Tekoah wants to go so far and insult the intelligence of people by trying to make them believe that this is evidence. 167. The fact that we have freedom of information in Lebanon, that communiques are issued in Lebanon-is that proof to hold the Government of Lebanon and the Lebanese people responsible for an action that took place outside our jurisdiction? Every newspaper in Lebanon publishes even statements by Israelis, stories by Israelis. They publish even stories and news coming from Israel. We have complete freedom of the press. Even Mr. Tekoah’s lies here in the Security Council will be reported in the Lebanese press. We have no restrictions on our press. We believe in freedom of the press and we respect it. It is something sacred in Lebanon. Referring to some declarations made some time ago in different contexts in relation 176. We have joined the multitude-not like you, Mr. Tekoah, in your self-glorifying statement of two days ago in which you told us that you and what you call the Jewish people refuse to join the multitude. We are part of this multitude, we want to remain in it, we want to work with it. 168. Our case is very clear. From the hour of 12.45 a.m. on Sunday, 12 May 1968, until now Israeli aggressions have not stopped against Lebanon in one form or another, Kiryat Shmona or no Kiryat Shmona. It is time for the Security Council to put an end to this matter, and that is what we have come here for. 177. You have also told us that you are different but equal. Well, by your conduct today, you have certainly proved to be quite different. But, quoting your Orwellian saying, How equal do you want to be? 178. I shall now refer to one or two facts that have incensed Mr. Tekoah. He was particularly angry at me, at the representative of the Byelorussian SSR and at the representative of the USSR. But in fact he not only has slandered our delegations but has insulted every delegation represented at this table. Only at our last meeting he informed us that the Governments whose representatives are sitting around this table do not really represent their public opinion. He was speaking to the representative of the USSR when he asked:

The representative of Israel accused the representative of the Byelorussian SSR of repeating himself in the Security Council. Certainly the Byelorussian delegation has repeated and will continue to repeat: stop the aggression, leave the occupied territories, and implement the decisions of the Council. 170. Over the last five years the Council, in considering the complaints of only one country-Lebanon-has repeated more than 10 times its condemnation of Israel for its aggressive actions. Israel is to blame for these repetitions, and not the Council. We are prepared not to repeat ourselves. Comply with the resolutions of the Council, liberate the occupied Arab lands, and the members of the Council will not repeat themselves. “Do they realize, for instance, that in all democratic countries, even in those whose Governments, for reasons of material expediency sometimes do lean towards the Arab States, the peoples, as demonstrated in public opinion polls, are squarely on Israel’s side? ” /I 767th meeting, para. 161.1

I realize that it is very close to 7 o’clock and the hour is late, but I feel that I should beg the indulgence of members of the Council to take a few more minutes to answer some of the statements made by the representative of Israel. To have the temerity to come to representatives of democratic Governments and tell them that if they uphold the cause of justice and right and support an Arab positiori in this Council or in the Assembly they are leaning for materialistic gains is, members of the Council, I contend, the height of cheek. 172. Let me say first of all that I will completely ignore the statements directed at me as President of the Security Council. I leave my conduct as President to the members of the Council to judge. It is their opinion and only their opinion that I value, not that of the representative of Israel. 179. He is also incensed by the fact that his action and the actions of his Government are likened to the Nazis. He should not be so angry. It was not the representative of the Byelorussian SSR who established the similarity; in fact, it was one of the great friends and supporters of the Zionist movement, none less than the late Sir Winston Churchill. Let me quote what he said on 17 November 1944, following the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo. Prime Minister Winston Churchill made the following statement to Parliament: 173. Speaking as representative of IRAQ, I should like to answer some of the points he raised about my Government. 174. First of all, he spoke about legality and legal arguments. Had that statement come from any other representative it would have been ,worthy of listening to and of consideration; but coming from a Government which has made a record of its scorn of the Security Council, of its intransigence and refusal to abide by its decisions and those of the Assembly and other international bodies, this is absurd and borders on the ridiculous. “If our dreams for zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins’ pistols and our labours for its future are to produce a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany” -these are the words of Sir Winston Churchill, not of the representative of the Byelorussian SSR-“many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past. lf 175. He has said that Iraq should not be on this Council and that he had shown concern in the General Assembly They have not been destroyed either by root or by branch. Menachem Begin, the leader of the most murderous Zionist gang, is making a bid to become the Prime Minister of Israel and will have a chance then to instruct Mr. Tekoah so that he can heap more insults on the members of the Council. 180. Now, Mr. Tekoah, your actions-not people’s bias or people’s unfairness-have brought you isolation from the world. Less than a month ago, the Government of the Republic of Guyana, a small, peaceful, third-world country, decided to sever its relations with your Government. Here is its reasoning, and I quote from a communiqud issued by it on 21 March: “While recognizing that since the commencement of the war of liberation of 6 October 1973 certain new concrete and positive elements have emerged, facilitating the movement towards a just and equitable resolution of some of the issues, the Ministry qf Foreign Affairs stated that the sequence of events, as they have unfolded since the adoption of Security Council resolution 340 (1973) of 25 October 1973, sponsored by the non-aligned countries, did not indicate that Israel had either abandoned her efforts at legitimizing the acquisition of territory by force or had genuinely pursued the path of peace in full acknowledgement of the imprescriptible right of the Palestinian people.” That is the view of a small country of what Israel is and what Israel’s policies are. 181. Mr. Tekoah spoke also of humanity. Let me inform you of something I came across in a letter from an Israeli, Reuben Radhadzu from Fatzabab, a letter published on 27 February 1974 in your newspaper Ha’olam Hazeh; I shall read part of the translation from Hebrew. He says: “In just three days, approximately four months after the war, I saw with my own eyes in a captured and damaged tank two whole bodies of Egyptian soldiers. The tank did not stand on the front line; it was brought a long way from there to a huge yard near a large base in Sinai. High-ranking commanders decided upon and carried out tbis operation and no one bothered to remove the bodies and to hand them over to the Egyptians.” I know this situation is difficult to imagine. He continues: “For an army like ours, holiness of its dead being one of the comer-stones, this army shows terrible neglect bordering upon cruelty when dealing with enemy dead. “Soldiers posted nearby tell me that there are other vehicles there with bodies in them. There is no reason to suppose that this is not known to the local commanders.” That is one example of Israel’s humanity and of Israel’s civilized conduct. 183. Mr. Tekoah quoted from Oppenheim and Lauterpacht as justification for Israeli aggression against Lebanon in the guise of self-preservation. He neglected to continue the quotation in full, so I shall do that for him. It reads: “The reason of the thing, of course, makes it necessary for every State to judge for itself, in the fust instance, whether a case of necessity in self-defence has arisen. But, unless the notion of self-preservation is to be eliminated as a legal conception, or unless it is used as a cloak for concealing deliberate breaches of the law, it is obvious that the question of the legality of action taken in self-preservation is “suitable for determination and must ultimately be determined by a judicial authority or by a political body, like the Security Council of the United Nations, acting in a judicial capacity. The refusal on the part of the State concerned to submit to or abide by the impartial determination of that question must therefore be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of international law under the guise of action in selfpreservation.“1 This is the answer to the case that you have presented to us, Mr. Tekoah. 184. In my capacity as PRESIDENT of the Council, I call on the representative of Israel.

I should like to refer to one point only in the statement of the representative of Iraq. He spoke about insults to the Council. I should lie to suggest that for a representative of Iraq to quote from Winston Churchill is an insult to the Council. I should like to suggest that for him to quote remarks regarding one particular incident from the leader of the Allies who fought the Nazis at a time when Iraq was doing its very best to remain on the other side of the frontline and to collaborate with them, is an insult to the Council. I suggest that to do that in respect of a people which not only suffered, as the Jewish people did, at the hands of the Nazis, but-even as Iraq continued to oppose the Allied effort during the Second World War-fought with Winston Churchill, under Winston Churchill, against the Nazis in the Middle East, is an insult to the Council. 186. Even today the Nazi collaboration of Iraq is not forgotten in his country. Thus, for instance, on 7 May 1972 the national militia completed a course-and this would not be considered of any particular interest were it not for the nickname given to that particular course, which was “The May 2nd class”. Why did the present Government of Iraq find it necessary to refer to that date today? On the 2nd of May 1941 Nazi elements in Iraq toppled over the existing mandatory Government in order to make certain that the pro-Nazi sympathies of many in Iraq should be expressed 1 L.F.L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Deatise, 7th ed., H. Lauterpacht, ed (London, Longman’s, Green and Co., 1955). vol. I, pp. 266-267. 187. indeed, it is an insult to the United Nations that we have reached a point whereby, because of bloc votes, a Government which continues openly to consider itself in a state of war with another State Member of the United Nations, a Government which has refused since 1948 to sign any armistice or cease-fire with that Member State, a Government which continues actively to participate in aggression against another State Member of the United Nations, has been elected to this Council and today presides over its deliberations.

I shall take only two minutes to reply, as representative of IRAQ, to the diatribe of Mr. Tekoah. I would say first of all that he has not in the course of his reply answered any of the questions that I \ have raised. He has indulged, as usual, in a propagandistic exercise to divert us from the issues with which we are dealing. He can falsify records as he chooses, but he cannot deny that Iraq was a member of the united nations that waged war against the Axis and put everything within its ability into seeing that the war effort would succeed and would result in victory. Also he can hardly deny that we were members of the United Nations when it met in San Francisco to draw up the Charter and that we are a founding Member of the United Nations. If anyone shames the United Nations by its presence it is Israel, which is the only country in the world with a membership that is conditional. I should like to quote from the record the very conditions on which Israel’s membership to this Organization was accepted and which Israel has violated for 25 years. General Assembly resolution 273 (III) states the following: ‘Noting furthermore the ‘declaration by the State of Israel that it ‘unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations’, “Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948”-and Mr. Tekoah knows very well what they -refer to; they refer to the obligation of Israel to repatriate or compensate the Palestinian people whom 189. Your membership, Mr. Tekoah, is conditional and you have not honoured or fulfilled your conditions. YOU are highly qualified, if anyone is, for dismissal from this Organization. 190. As PRESIDENT, I call on the representative of Israel. 191. hlr. TEKOAH (Israel): To the list of insults by the representative of Iraq to the Security Council and to the United Nations, I would only add two points. Indeed, it is an insult to all States Members of the United Nations for a Government which has rejected all resolutions calling for peace with Israel, another State Member of the United Nations, for a Government which has tom to shreds the Charter of the United Nations in relation to Israel, to speak here of resolutions and the Charter of our Organization. It is also an insult to this Council and to all Members of the United Nations when the representative of a Government falsifies his own country’s history. Iraq joined the United Nations, the Allies, in the last few days of the War, after a deadline had been set by the United States, Great Britain, France and other Allied nations to the effect that unless and until those that still had not become members of the great alliance for freedom did so they would not be able to participate in the establishment of those instrumentalities under which the world has been trying to tread its course since the Second World War. It was only under that threat of exclusion, it was only after the pro-Nazi Government was overthrown by the British allies, by Winston Churchill’s troops, that Iraq found it necessary, under duress almost, to say that it too would like to become part of the future. Now that history is all too fresh in the minds of all of us. It is an insult when the representative of such a country comes here to falsify it.

Speaking in my capacity as the representative of IRAQ, I would say that I shall not take up any more of the Council’s time because the debate would degenerate into further diatribes. I shall leave comment on Israel’s respect for United Nations resolutions-and especially Security Council resolutions-until Mr. Tekoah responds at the end of our debate to whatever the Council will decide upon, as he normally does. TThe meeting rose at 7.15 p.m. . HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS Unite 1 Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences depositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous aupres de votre libraire ou adressez.vous B : Nations Unies. Section des ventes. New York ou Geneve. ICAK IIOJIYVMTb H3P[AHZIR OPI’AHUBAWfH OKbEAHHEHHbIX HAltHa HJAaHHR ODraHu3aquu 06-beAuHeHHblX HawiR *IOIKHO K~IXHT~ a RHHXCKHLIX Mara- 3KHax H arenzcraax ao acex panousx mupa. Haaonnre cnpaaxH 06 nsiqamiax s samex xnnaoio~ narasmie mm nmunte no anpecy: Oprauu3auna 063.enauenuhrx HauuR, CeKqWR no nponaace nsAannB. Hbm-Hopx HIIW Weaeaa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estin en venta en librerfas y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirfjase a: Naciones Unidas, Secei6n de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Lltho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 2.00 74-82001-May 1989-2,200