S/PV.1934 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken at the 1924th, 1928th and 1933rd meetings, I shall now invite the Chairman and other members of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the representatives of Afghanistan, Bahrain, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, Jordan, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Yugoslavia to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. At the invitation of the President, the delegation of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and Mr. Terzi (Paiestine Liberation Organization) took places at the Council table and Mr. Siddiq (Afghanistan), Mr. Ai- Suffer (Bahrain). Mr. AiarcBn (Cuba). Mr. Ashtai (Democratic Yemen), Mr. Ahdei Meglrid (Egypt), Mr. Florin (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Bcinycisz. (Hungary), Mr. Jaipai (India), Mr. Sharaf (Jordan), Mr. Boalom (Lao People’s Democratic Republic), Mr. El Hassen (Mauritania), Mr. Zaimi (Morocco), Mr. Baroody (Saudi Arabia), Mr. Al/of (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Tiirkmen (Turkey), Mr. Humaidan (United Arab Emirates) and Mr. Petrie (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Algeria, Indonesia and Tunisia, containing requests to be invited to participate without the right to vote in the discussion, in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. In accordance with the usual practice, I therefore propose with the Council’s consent, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. 3. In view of the limited number of places available at the Council table, I invite those representatives to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding that they will be invited to take a place at the Council table when it is their turn to speak. At the imitation of the President, Mr. Rahai (Aigeria), Mr. Marpalrng (Indonesia) and Mr. Driss (Tanisia) took the places reserlved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

Mr. President, may I say at the outset what a pleasure it is that this meeting is taking place under the presidency of the Foreign Minister of a country, a friendly Commonwealth country, with which the United Kingdom has many ties of long standing, many traditional contacts and, indeed, with which, we have extremely friendly relations. 5. First, I shoud however like to express to the United States delegation our profound condolences for the tragic deaths in Beirut on 16 June of Ambassador Meloy and his companions. Those deaths have brought home to us all once again the tragedy of the events in Lebanon. They underline the sacrifices which are being made there in the cause of peace. 6. Before turning to the substantive question before us today, I should like to explain briefly why my delegation abstained, as we have done on similar 7. I should also like at the outset of my remarks to remind the Council why my delegation voted against General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX) by which the Assembly set up the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and which requested the present meeting of the Council. The reasons were in fact set out in the statement made by my colleague from Italy, Ambassador Vinci, on 10 November 1975, when he spoke on behalf of the nine member countries of the European Community*. In that statement he expressed our concern that resolution 3376 (XXX) took no account of Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the principles of which in our view must provide both the basis for a peaceful settlement and the framework for negotations. Secondly, he explained the reservations which we held about the establishment of a committee with a mandate based on resolution 3236 (XXIX) upon which all members of the Nine had abstained. We abstained on that resolution because, in our view, it did not take into account all the essential elements for arriving at a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East, in particular, the need to recognize the right of all States in the region, including Israel, to live within secure and recognized boundaries. We feared that a committee established in those circumstances and with such a mandate, however well intentioned its members might be, would be unable to arrive at a balanced report which would make a helpful contribution to the cause of peace in the Middle East. 8. The Council has already had a number of oc- -casions this year to consider the Palestine question in its debates-from 1% to 26 January [187&h to 1879th meetings], 22 to 25 March [1893rd to 1899th meetings] and 4 to 26 May [f9/6th to 1922nd meetings]. The views of my own Government were fully set out in,the statements I made in the Council on 15 [1873rd meeting] and 26 January [1879th meeting] and yet again on 25 March [189&h meeting]. I do not therefore wish to take th.e time or to try the patience of the Council-which, in all conscience, must already be tried sufficiently-by going ‘over .again at length all that I said on those occasions. I would, however, like to summarize the views of my Government in the following way. 10. The first two of those requirements from the basic principles of resolution 242 (1967), yhich is to be brought into effect as provided in resolution 338 (1973). Those two resolutions form the widely accepted foundation for a settlement and my Government therefore opposes any unilateral attempt to alter them or to detract from them. The third requirement is not expressed in resolution 242 (1967), and for this reason my Government has stated our view that resolution 242 (1967) must be supplemented, but not supplanted, so as to take account of the political rights of the Palestinian people and to enable them to express their national identity. But we have also pointed out that this must be done in a way which can be reconciled with the right of all States in the area, including Israel, to exist within secure and recognized boundaries. 11. There is, I believe, a very wide measure of agreement in the Council on the fundamentals of those three principles, even if there are differences that may divide some or others of us on the use of this or that word. But what I think must be emphasized is that those three principles have to be taken together. As Ambassador Malik put it recently, they need to be seen as an integrated whole. A similar point is made in paragraph 51 of the report we are now considering, where the view is stated that “Palestinian rights could not be achieved outside a comprehensive, just settlement...“; and in paragraph 52, which begins: “The view was accordingly expressed that a just and durable settlement in the Middle East must be based on the following fundamental principles”. The report then goes on to list three principles in very similar terms ’ to those which I have just stated. We very much regret that the authors of the report should have lost sight of the importance of considering those three principles as a whole when they came to draft the report’s recommendations. .I 12. Turning now to the recommendations themselves, there are a number of points on which.: my delegation would agree. First, .on the section of .Part Two concerning the right of return of Palestinian refugess, my Government voted for Council re’solution 237 (1967) which, inter alia, called on the Govern- 13. In this connexion, we have noted the role which the Committee proposes that UNRWA might play in the return of Palestinian refugees. It might therefore be appropriate to remind the Council and the Committee -of the very serious financial crisis now facing UNRWA and of the warning that the Commissioner- General has recently issued-that, if further funds are not forthcoming, the Agency may actually have to cease operations at the end of next month. My own Government has now agreed to make a special contribution to UNRWA this year, in addition to our regular contribution for 1976, which we had already increased to f3 million. Wherever the responsibility for the refugee situation may or may not lie, we believe that UNRWA will only be able to maintain its services to the refugees, let alone take on the additional tasks foreseen by the Committee, if there is now a concerted effort by all Member States to provide additional funds urgently. 14. In this connexion, we were very pleased to note the generous additional contribution to UNRWA of $10 million recently announced by the Government of Saudi Arabia, and also the recent announcement by the Government of Japan. We hope that all those who have shown their concern for the Palestinians by taking part in this debate will demonstrate their concern in this very concrete way by increasing their own contributions to UNRWA. 15. Moving on now to the section of the recommendations dealing with the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, my delegation was pleased to note the emphasis in the report on the frontiers existing in June 1967, particularly in view of the favourable comments that have been made on the report by the PLO. At the same time, we regret very much the failure of this section of the report, as I have pointed out above, to take account of all three fundamental requirements of a settlement, and to‘consider them as an integral whole. We regret that nowhere in this section is there any mention of the need for the recog- 16. We regret also that, while there is at least a reference in paragraph 72 (g) of the recommendations to the establishment of peace, it is suggested that this should only be discussed after Israel has already withdrawn to the pre-1967 borders and a Palestinian State has already been established. , 17. Finally, we regret the suggestion in this subparagraph that, even after those two conditions have been carried out, further steps would still be necessary for the full implementation of Palestinian rights. The Israelis could be excused if they were to see in this a threat to their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. 18. The main aim of the Council at this time must be to get the negotiations going again in whatever framework seems most likely to work, and with the participation as appropriate of all the parties concerned. The Council itself cannot carry on the negotiations. It will not help, therefore, for the Council to try to dictate to the negotiators in advance, for example by setting purely arbitrary timetables. What we can do and what we should do is to encourage the parties-and that means all the parties-to resume the negotiating process. We should also do our best to. try to check the dangerous polarization in the positions of the two sides and work towards creating common ground between them. This will, I recognize, require a considerable degree of statemanship on all sides and, above all, a willingness to compromise. 19. We understand and sympathize with the feelings, born out of frustration and despair, of those who have for so long been homeless refugees. But we believe that they must come to accept the reality of Israel’s existence as recognized by the great majority of Member States. Without this acceptance, there clearly cannot be any prospect of a peaceful settlement in the area. 20. From a close reading of the various statements of the PLO over the past two years, it could be inferred that they might come to accept this reality. If this is so, could it not now be made more explicit? If the PLO could now say clearly that the existence of the State of Israel can indeed be reconciled with the rights of the Palestinian people, this would be of the greatest help. On the other side, we believe that, just as the Israelis have fought for the recognition of their own rights as a people, so they should be ready to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people and to accept that Palestinian nationalist sentiment will have to be taken into account in a settlement. 21. By the end of this debate the Security Council will have devoted well over 30 meetings this year so far to considering the Palestinian question. We cannot but note with regret that our activity here, useful

Mr. President, may I say, first of all, how privileged I feel to be addressing the Council under your presidency, having had the honour of knowing you for some years-from before the time that you took up the portfolio of Foreign Affairs-and knowing also the friendly feelings which your country and you yourself bear towards my country and my people. They are feelings which, I assure you. are fully and heartily reciprocated. 23. I have already conveyed the condolences of my delegation and my own to the Mission of the United States on the tragic death of their colleague Ambassador Meloy and his companions. I wish to place on record here my delegations’s abhorrence and condemnation of such gratuitous acts of violence. 24. Needless to say, as a member of the Committee established under General Assembly resolution 3376 (XXX) to consider how the Palestinian people might be enabled to exercise their rights, my delegation subscribes to the Committee’s report. I do not intend, therefore, to dwell at length on the contents and recommendations of the report or to discuss their details. That was done with admirable clarity and thoroughness by the Committee’s Chairman, the representative of Senegal, and its Rapporteur, Mr. Gauci of Malta [192&h meeting]. As a member of the Committee and of the Council, I should like to pay a tribute to both of them for the ability and perseverance with which they have performed their by no means easy task. 25. Broadly speaking, the report deals with two aspects of the subject: first, the concrete nature and precise extent of the rights of the Palestinian people, and, secondly, the modalities and programme for enabling them to regain those rights. We have no illusions about the controversial nature of the report’s findings and recommendations in both respects. 26. Paragraph 70 of the Committee’s report sums up what in the Committee’s view is the essence of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the root cause of the 30-yearold Middle East crisis, and this passage bears repetition. With the permission of the Council I should like to read it out: 27. The people of Pakistan has always supported the cause of the Palestinian people. Our support is based on principles which we hold dear, the principles of self-determination, respect for and observance of the principles of the Charter and the resolutions of the United Nations, and the rejection of force and intimidation in. international relations. My country has always considered the partition of Palestine to have been misguided and unjust. There were other solutions to the problem which partition was intended to resolve but they were not considered. There were other waysin which, given time and detachment from the power politics of the time, Palestine could have attained independence to the benefit, and with the consent, of all its inhabitants. The founder of the nation of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, whose centenary we celebrate this year, warned in 1947 that “the proposed United Nations plan for Palestine would entail the gravest danger and unprecedented conflict”. Who will deny that that gloomy forecast has been proved true? 28. Nor was Pakistan alone in expressing doubts and fears about the establishment by external fiat of a State based on a mythical racial concept and, almost by definition, for people who were foreign to it, in a land where Jews, Christians and Moslems had lived in peace and amity for centuries. When the British Cabinet considered the proposal that the British Government should undertake the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the member who opposed the proposal was the only Jewish member of the British Cabinet, Mr. Edwin Montagu. He opposed the notion of establishing a Zionist homeland in Palestine or in various other parts of the world which were suggested at the time, for, said he, the national home of every Jew is the country to which he belongs and of which he is a citizen. As for Palestine, he pointed out that if Palestine had played a large part in Jewish history, it had had an equally important role in the history of Christianity and of Islam. Mr. Montagu believed that the future of Palestine, as well as of other parts of the former Ottoman Empire, should be determined by the will of its inhabitants and the free exercise by them of the principle of self-determination. His long Minute of Dissent argues with great cogency 29. The British Government went ahead, nevertheless, for considerations which had more to do with the conduct of the First World War than with the welfare of the peoples concerned, and committed itself to the aims of political Zionism. It is a moot point what precisely was intended by the creation of a national home in Palestine for Jews, but the Balfour Declaration itself stipulated on behalf of His Majesty’s Government “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non- Jewish communities in Palestine”.3 Neither the Balfour Declaration nor the partition resolution of 1947 [General Assembly resolution 181 (If)] visualized the complete disappearance of the State of Palestine or of the entity of the Palestinian people. Indeed, resolution 181 (II) spelled out in considerable detail the duties and responsibilities of the partitioned State. Nothing that has happened since then can be taken to sanction the infringements of Arab rights which ensued and which have never ceased to occur. 33. Some have preferred to dispute or to ignore this reality. They would like to see the Palestinian problem disappear by ignoring the existence of the Palestinian entity. They urge that the rights of the Palestinian people can be protected by their absorption into neighbouring countries. Israel, which all along professed to seek a negotiated settlement with the Arabs, refuses to recognize the representatives of the Palestinian people as a party to the negotiations. It seeks explicit recognition of its own entity from the representatives of a people whose entity it has destroyed and to whose re-emergence it continues to pose every obstacle. My delegation considers that the United Nations, and even more, those of its Members which were instrumental in the partitioning of Palestine and which condoned the uprooting of the Palestinian people, owe it to them now to help to restore their individual and national rights. 30. What happened, in fact, was that an ancient nation was deprived of its heritage and driven into refugee camps. It was hoped that somehow. they would accept their fate and that the very name of Palestine would disappear from the map. The reality is otherwise. Mr. Yasser Arafat, when he spoke before the General Assembly two years ago, told us: 34. It is, above all, the bounden duty of Israel itself, not merely morally but in terms of its legal obligations under the United Nations resolutions which sanctioned its existence, to allow those Palestinians who left their homes and property in what is now the State of Israel to exercise the option of returning to their homes and property or to compensate them if they choose otherwise. Israel must at the same time cease to stand in the way of the exercise of the right of selfdetermination by the Palestinian people and, to that end;evacuate the territories of Palestine occupied in 1967. “All along, the Palestinian dreamt of return. Neither the Palestinian’s allegiance to Palestine nor his determination to return waned; nothing could persuade him to relinquish his Palestinian identity or to forsake his homeland. The passage of time did not make him forget, as some had hoped he would.“4 35. ‘This is what the report of the Committee states in sum. There are those who consider the report to be lacking in impartiality, balance and realism. We do not agree with those sweeping criticisms, but let me say in passing that if the views of the critics of the report are not reflected in the report, that is primarily due to their own systematic and organized boycott of the Committee and their failure or refusal to extend to it the necessary co-operation. 3i. In 30 years we have come full circle. Those who blew up the King David Hotel, decimated the population of Deir Yassin and murdered Count Bemadotte now piously decry the use of violence by the victims of their violence. They wish the world to forget, as they have themselves chosen to do, that the very act which brought their State into existence, resolution 181 (II), also recognized the continued existence of the Palestine State. 36. It must be remembered that the Committee was set up to define the rights of the Palestinian people, rights which every other people enjoys as a natural and inalienable part of its national identity. The Committee’s mandate required it, furthermore, to state how those rights could best be implemented. These questions cannot be separated from the issue of peace in the Middle East, and, as the Committee has reiterated, they lie at the root of the Middle East conflict. Although the United Nations system as a whole has recognized the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, in the Security Council we still lack unanimity on the matter. This lack of unanimity needs to be remedied before there can be hope for an over-all 32. We consider the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People as picking up from where the decisions and events of 1947 and 1948 left off. It is based on the belief that the question of Palestine is at the heart of the Middle East problem and that no solution of that problem can be envisaged which does not take fully into account the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. What are these aspirations? The desire to return to the homes and property which they had to leave is not peculiar to the Palestinians, but natural 37.. The optimism aroused by last year’s partial agreements has been dissipated. The Middle East is the scene of turmoil and tension, and the tension is mounting. On two occasions in preceding months the Council has had to deal with the situation created by unrest and revolt in the occupied West Bank and in Israel itself. Can anyone question the fundamental cause of these tensions and turmoils? It lies in the continued refusal by Israel to restore their usurped rights to the Palestinians, to give recognition to the Palestinian reality, its pursuit of a policy which assumes that the existence of Israel requires the extinction of Palestine. The expropriations of Arab lands and property, the establishment of Jewish settlements in Arab territories in order to accommodate more Jewish immigrants, a policy which a former general of the Israeli army has compared to the Nazi doctrine of Lchens~a~~~n-these are the specific obstacles to the resumption of efforts to establish peace in the Middle East. 38. A just and enduring peace would require, in addition to the recognition and restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people, that Israel withdraw from all the Arab territories it occupied in 1967 and that arrangements be made to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all the States in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. 39. The Committee has presented to us the result of its deliberations in the form of certain recommendations. Are those recommendations unrealistic? Not in their essence and fundamentals. Some. may hold different views about the manner of their implementation, and that can be the subject of discussion, but one cannot justifiably find fault with the main preoccupations reflected in the report. 40. What is, indeed, unrealistic is the assumption that Israel can continue to flout the dictates of justice and good sense, to defy world opinion and United Nations decisions, to suppress internal dissent and for ever hold at bay the Arab people in whose midst it must exist, spuming and mistrusting their offers to coexist, depending for its survival on the supply of unlimited, unending and unquestioning military, economic and political support from abroad, support not for the survival of Israel but for the preservation of its conquests and furtherance of its aims. 41. The alternative to a redress of the injustices done the Palestinian people over the last three decades is more war and bloodshed-needless war and needless bloodshed. Unfortunately, and. tragically, there is little evidence that the Israeli Government and leaders are ready to seize the opportunity offered at 42. Mr. de GUIRINGAUD (France) (interpretation from French): Mr. President, first of all I should like to say how appreciative my delegation is of the honour you do us by personally directing our work today. The reputation you enjoy for the contribution you have made to the work done in other bodies convinces us further of the usefulness of your presence. 43. Like many other speakers, I wish again to express to the United States delegation our condolences on the murder, in particularly unpleasant circumstances, of the Ambassador of the United States in Beirut and his two companions. This senseless act has quite rightly aroused general indignation. How can we fail at the same time to think of all the victims of the tragic events in Lebanon, all the suffering of the people of that country, which was for so long a model of equilibrium and tolerance? France has particular attachment and sympathy for that country. We very much hope that, without further delay, the time of national reconciliation will be at hand. 44. Meeting as required by the General Assembly to examine “the question of the exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights”, the Security Council is not.dealing with a new problem. Indeed, this problem is one of the fundamental aspects of a case which has existed since the very first years of our Organization’s existence, and on many occasions since then we have had to consider further developments in it, and we have particularly had to consider these matters several times in recent months. The report transmitted to us by the S,ecretary-General constitutes a new and i.mportant element in this case. It represents an effort to give concrete expression to the recent trend towards restoring the question of the rights of the Palestinian people to a prominent place among the factors which sould be taken into account in any lasting settlement of the Middle East problem. It therefore constitutes an important contribution to the deliberations of the Council, which is acting quite properly within the framework laid down by its own resolutions. 45. Indeed, as I stated in the important debate that we held in January [1872nd meeting], what is involved for us here is to see to it that in the search for a settlement, all the aspects of the matter are taken into account, that is to say, those connected with the results of the 1967 conflict and those which relate to the more recent upsurge of interest in the aspirations of the Palestinian people to have, like all other peoples, a homeland of their own. Now if the former aspects are very familiar and have been particularly reflected 46. All efforts aimed at spelling out the recognized elements of a settlement in order to ensure that they can simultaneously be taken into account in negotiations deserve the attention of the Council. Our objective surely is to see to it that any settlement brings that satisfaction of the concerns and the legitimate objectives of each of the parties which alone can be the foundation for a just and lasting peace. 50. I should like to be clearly understood. We do not mean to go back on the general principles which have been recognized and whose implementation is an important element in a settlement. It should be stressed that one of the elements of this settlement cannot be implemented unconditionally and, in the case of the return of the 1967 refugees, immediately, while the others are reserved for negotiation and for a subsequent stage. The purpose of negotiation is not to go back on recognized principles. Negotiation makes it possible, according to the guidelines determined by those principles, for all elements to be taken equally into account so that each party can find reasons for endorsing their implementation. Furthermore, as I pointed out as far back as 26 January last [1879rh meeting], when I explained the affirmative vote of France on the draft resolution before the Council, the return of the refugees might become a subsidiary feature once it is recognized by all the parties, and I quote the text of the draft resolution, that the Palestinian .people have a right to “an independent State in Palestine” [S/11940]. 47. Our approach, which has been open-minded with respect to all the evidence and to every effort that has been undertaken with the sincere wish to help in the search for a settlement, is based upon the conviction that there can be no peace in the Middle East except within the framework of an over-all settlement. This conviction prompts us to make three points which determine our views on the report before the Council. 48. My first point is that the elements of a settlement are inseparable: first, the right of the Arab States to recover their territorial integrity, which entails the evacuation from the territories occupied in 1967; second, the right of the Palestinian people to an independent homeland; and third, the right of every State in the area to live in peace within secure, recognized and guaranteed frontiers. On this basis, we note that the report of the Committee, in keeping with the terms of the mandate it received, deals with the second of these points and indirectly with the first. It disregards the third. If we call upon the whole’intemational community, and primarily Israel, to concede a major political factor, namely, the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland, we are also calling upon the same international community to confirm or recognize the rights which Israel possesses as a State, like all other Member States. The responsibility of the Council, which, contrary to that of the Committee, is not limited to the mandate laid down by the General Assembly, is to reconcile these rights, taking into account the human and historical legitimacy of a Palestinian homeland, while enabling Israel to co-exist peacefully with all its neighbours. In our view, this over-all approac’h requires that the winning of certain rights, however legitimate they may be, must be accompanied ‘by respect for other rights, which are equally legitimate. 51. My third point, which derives from the considerations I have already mentioned, is that the role of the Council is to lay down the principles, as it has already done, and to recommend to the parties the terms of the settlement it deems appropriate. It is not the Council’s role imperatively to require the implementation of any one of those principles to the exclusion of the others, in accordance with any programme it might arbitrarily determine. This comment applies also to the recommendation in the report inviting the Council to establish a time-table for the withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967. 52. The Council is also, in our view, acting in accordance with its role if it demonstrates its readiness to help the parties in applying the settlement, particularly by contributing to a system of guarantees. My Government has repeatedly stated that it would be ready 49(, My second point is that, in accordance with resolution 338 (1973), a settlement can result only from 53. Similarly, the Council might declare itself willing to contemplate direct assistance from the international community for the re-establishment of the Palestinians. In such an operation, existing agencies, and particularly UNRWA could have a special role to play. But, of course, in the light of the serious financial difticulties confronting the Agency, such a development of its activities would presuppose considerably greater support than it has received so far. 54. All our efforts should therefore be directed towards encouraging the resumption of genuine negotiations, which it will be our task to follow very closely, in order to satisfy ourselves that all the elements have in fact been taken into account and to endorse the results. 55. The Committee’s report.is a valuable contribution in the sense that it helps us to appreciate the rights of the Palestinian people, which we have recognized -rights the exercise of which should be one of the basic elements of the settlement, along with the implementation of the principles laid down in resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (f973). As I have stressed, we do have some reservations about this study. But in giving the Council food for thought, it maintains a useful trend towards demonstrating to the Palestinian people, so sorely tried and still prey to frustrations, exile and, for very many of them, the harsh reality of the camps, that the international community now recognizes that consideration of the Palestinian factor is an essential element in any truly just and lasting over-all settlement.

The members of the Council will recall the Council’s earlier decision [/933rd meeting] to extend an invitation under rule.39 of the provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Amin Hilmy II, the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, to participate in the Council’s consideration of the item now on its agenda. Ambassador Hilmy wishes to speak at this time. Accordingly, I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 57. Mr. HILMY: I should like at the outset to take the opportunity to express to the delegation, the Government and the people of the United States the League of Arab States sincere condolences and sympathy on the tragic loss they have sustained in the death of the United States Ambassador to Lebanon and his colleagues. 58. May I, Sir, extend my delegation’s congratulations to you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. Guyana’s outstanding contribution to the noble causes of liberation, peace and security is a landmark in the history of the third-world 59. It is not an exaggeration for me to say that the Arab world is living a tragedy. An integral part of its body is suffering and bleeding. The tragedy began in 1948, when the indigenous Palestinian people were displaced by force, uprooted from their homes, their society and their country. Most of them became refugees. Tents were and still are their only shelter; charity, which they never asked for, became their source of survival. In that context the Palestinian problem is unique in its character. It is not only a problem of Zionist colonialism and racism, but also a problem of a people that was driven by sheer force from its homeland. 60. For almost 30 years the United Nations has been trying to relieve the pain, rather than taking effective action to stop its causes. But the tragedy goes on. Accordingly, several bitter wars have taken place in the area and others are still looming on the horizon and will continue to do so unless something is done. 61. Only in 1974 did the General Assembly realize that charity-by any measure, no matter how it is rendered--cannot be an effective treatment. The Assembly addressed itself to the origin of the problem, to its roots, by giving a precise definition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. By its resolution 3236 (XXIX) the Assembly “1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including: (a) The right to self-determination without external interference; (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty; “2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return.” 62. Those rights, however, are not simply a piece of intellectual literature. They are not in a vacuum. They should and must be given material form in deeds and actions. Therefore, the following year, 1975, the General Assembly took another sound step in that direction when it decided, by its resolution 3376 (XXX), to establish the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in order to develop a programme of implementation designed to enable the Palestinian people to exercise the rights recognized in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX). The Committee, under the able chairmanship of Ambassador Fall, with the assistance 63. My delegation does not intend to deal here with the Committee’s report, since its recommendations, which are inspired by previous United Nations resolutions in this context, are specific and self-explanatory. However, my delegation cannot avoid addressing itself to the claims of those who advocate a balanced resolution and negotiations. Such claims paralyse the Council’s action, particularly when the case under discussion is that of the inalienable rights of a certain people-the Palestinian people. 67. Conceptualizing the Israeli denial of the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights, Yediot Ahoronorh of 17 October 1969 indicated that Menachem Begin, at a conference at Ain Hahoresh in Mapom kibbutz, when asked about the recognition of the existence of the Palestinian people, said: “My friends, take care. When you recognize the concept of ‘Palestine’, you demolish your right to live in Ain Hahoresh. If this is Palestine, and not the land of ‘Israel, then you are conquerors and not tillers of the land. You are invaders. If this is Palestine, then it belongs. to a people who lived here before you came. Only if it is the land of Israel do you have a right to live in Ain Hahoresh and Deganiyah. If it is not your country, your fatherland, the country of your ancestors and of your sons, then what are you doing here? You came to another people’s homeland, as they claim, you expelled them and you have taken their land.” ,64. Inalienable rights derive from the fact that all human beings are born free and equal. In political terms, this implies that man is entitled to self-determination and independence, and to practise his sovereignty within the framework of his homeland without foreign intimidation or interference. In this context, the inalienable rights could be reduced to two words: the “identity” and “dignity” of man. Identity and dignity are to be or not to be; there is no compromise on their basic tenets. 68. Against that background, it is a paradox pm excellence that there are some who still insist on advocating negotiation of the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights. 65. That background denies any call for balancing resolutions when the subject under discussion is the inalienable rights of a certain people. Palestinian inalienable rights, therefore, will never be the subject of compromises. Any call for a compromise through insistence on a so-called balanced resolution is, in fact, an attempt to keep those inalienable rights unresolved, thus sharing in compounding the existing tragedy. By the same token, any demands for negotiation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are baseless and unfounded, since such demands imply that Palestinian identity and dignity are negotiable. . 69. International peace and security are seriously threatened so long as the Middle East crisis remains unresolved. It is a fact that the Palestine question is the core of the crisis. An example of that threat is the repercussions of the October 1973 war, during which the structure of international peace and security was on the verge of collapse. 70. Respect for the inalienable rights of man is the cement of world order, since it implies that man can determine his destiny freely and without exploitation or intimidation. All other values, such as the interdependence of international relations and universality, are therefore derived from the basic value of respect for the inalienable rights of man. Accordingly, international peace and security will continue to be vulnerable so long as the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and of the peoples of Zimbabwe, Namibia, Azania and other countries are denied and ignored. 66. The hypocritical nature of those demands becomes crystal clear when one considers them from the perspective of Israel. Israel does not recognize the Palestinian people’s identity or its dignity. In this respect, Mrs. Golda Meir said the following in an interview with Frank Giles, published in The Sunday Times of London on 15 June 1969: “There was no such thing as Palestinians... It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and we threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.” 71. It is the responsibility of the Security Council to maintain international peace and security. In doing so, the Council has the duty to take the necessary immediate steps to put the recommendations of the Committee into ample action. I repeat: she said “They did not exist.” In elaboration of such an obstinate position, Mrs. Golda Meir, in an interview with the British B~roadcasting -Corporation on 27 September 1972, added that she could see no possibility of the Palestinians in the Middle East ever having a homeland of their own. She said: “There is 72. In this connexion, acting in a spirit of close cooperation with the United Nations and in accordance 73. World opinion represented in the 188 resolutions of both the General Assembly and the Security Council dealing with the Palestine question is looking anxiously and with deep concern to the present deliberations of the Council to see what action it will take. My delegation is hopeful that the Council will act in accordance with the demands and aspirations of world opinion, which imply the return of the Palestinian people to their land, where they should be guaranteed the right to practice freely their sovereignty and independence, and where they can live in peace in the land of peace, in Palestine. 74.. The PRESIDENT: I should like to inform the members of the Council that I have just received a letter from the representative of Oman in which he asks to be invited to participate in the discussion, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. Accordingly, I propose, in accordance with the usual practice, and with the consent of the Council, to invite the representative of Oman to participate in the discussion without the right. to vote. 7j. In view of the limited number of seats available at the Council table, I invite the representative of Oman to take the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding’ that he will be invited to take a place at the Council table when it is his turn to speak. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Al-Said (Oman) took the place reseriled for him at the side of the Council charrrher.

The next speaker is the representative of Tunisia whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, it is particularly gratifying to me to congratulate you most warmly on behalf of the delegation of Tunisia for the initiative you have taken in coming personally to preside over the meetings of the Council. I should like to take this opportunity to voice the wish that the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Council members would come more frequently to Council meetings to shoulder their responsibilities for the maintenance and safeguard of international peace. -- -- 78. With your permission, Sir, I wish in turn to express the sincerest condolences of my delegation 79. I also wish to thank the members of the Council for having allowed me to participate in this debate and pay a tribute to their ceaseless efforts to maintain and safeguard international peace. In the course of the last two months, under the presidency both of Ambassador de Guiringaud, the representative of France, who displayed decided wisdom and praiseworthy technical skill, and of our friend Ambassador Jackson, the representative of Guyana, whose competence and devotion I am pleased to pay a tribute to, this Council had dealt in particular with two important problems: the activities of Israel in the occupied Arab territories, and those of South Africa against our African brothers in Azania. By the statement of the President reflecting . the views of the majority in the first case [1922nd meeting], and then by its unanimously adopted resolution in the second case [resolution 392 (197611, the Council has expressed the concern of the international community in regard to the explosive situations in Palestine and in South Africa. At the same time, the Council has indicated its support for the .peoples of Palestine and Azania in their struggle against oppression. I am convinced, Mr. President, that, thanks to your dedication and competence and to the support you will surely be given by Council members, this new debate in which we are involved will yield encouraging results. 80. In paying a tribute to your lofty qualities, Sir, I wish above all to salute your country, Guyana, a member of the non-aligned Group and of the Group of 77. 81. The Security Council’s consideration of the report of the Committee. on the Exercise of the Inalien- ‘able Rights of the Palestinian People, which was established by the General Assembly under resolution 3376 (XXX), prompts me to address this body at a time when the struggle of the Palestinian people for the attainment of its inalienable rights is being pursued and is acquiring new dimensions. This statement is prompted also by the brilliant introduction of this report here by Ambassador Fall, whose outstanding qualities and competence during his chairmanship of the debates I must emphasize, and whose wisdom and tact have enabled the Committee to reach, such fruitful results. 82. First of all, on behalf of my country, I wish to praise this struggle of an entire people, which is one with all national and patriotic struggles against foreign domination. As all these historic struggles have been crowned with success, so too will that of the Palestinian people, in its turn, succeed one-day in its hour of victory-a victory all the more deserved because of the heavy sacrifices which that people has willingly borne. / 1 87. In addition, the illustrious French statesman, Mend&s France, on his return from Israel, made a statement which was mentioned at the beginning of this debate [!924th meeting, puru. 481 by Ambassador Fall the representative of Senegal and the Chairman of the Committee, and which deserves to be studied. In this statement Mr. Mend&s France analyses the situation in the Middle East in the light of the Israeli-Arab conflict and invites Israel to acknowledge the urgency of a solution which recognizes the rights of the Palestinian people. 88. The last new element is the.recent evolution of the situation in the Middle East, where the Palestinian element is increasingly becoming an essential factor in the search for a just and lasting peace in that region of the world. 84. Is the situation propitious for the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to be adopted in their present or an improved form? These recommendations are the result of a compromise, and in substance are in accord with the draft resolution accepted by the members of the Council in January 1976 [S/119403 but rejected by a single Power. In comparing the recommendations with the draft resolution, we perceive that the recommendations are more practical because they provide for stages and modalities for their application. whereas the draft resolution rejected last January merely stated the foundations for a peaceful solution of the entire problem of the Middle East. 89. All these elements lead us to consider the problem with which we are concerned from a new point of view and impose on us the obligation to find a solution which is all the more urgent since the threat of the conflict spreading is becoming more acute. 90. The Security Council was seized., in the months of March and May last, of certain aspects of the Palestinian problem, such as the question of the Holy Places, the establishment of settlements in the West Bank and the repression of national demonstrations. Consideration of these problems by the Council led to its noting a poignant feature, and that is the deadlock in which the Council finds itself since the positions of the Powers have not changed. They have remained the same as at the end of the debate in January 1976. 85. Since then, new elements have been added to the facts of the case: first, the Palestinian demonstrations; secondly, the municipal elections; thirdly, the statements made by American senators, among them Jacob Javits, James Abourezk, Adlai Stevenson, Floyd Haskell, Charles Percy and .George McGovern, who, in the course of a debate in the United States Senate, criticized the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories in the West Bank of the Jordan. Senator Javits was particularly severe with regard to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. He said, “These settlements cannot alter the final disposition of these territories”, and he went on to say: “Israel’s position is one of isolation with regard to these territories. These are, in our opinion, measures which nothing can justify nor any country approve of, however close its ties to Israel.” What is even more, in the course of the debate Senator Abourezk proposed .that the Foreign Affairs Committee adopt and transmit to the Senate a resolution condemning the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories. 91. It is true that the United States representative, Mr. Scranton, tried to warn the Government of Israel of the consequences of its policy, particularly as regards the establishment of settlements, which runs counter to the peace procedures. But if no agreement can be reached on the basis of a draft resolution which could start us on the road to peace in the Middle East, we are convinced that, with the change in attitudes and in the situation, agreement will be possible tomorrow and will of necessity, in our opinion, include the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian State that would co-operate perfectly with its neighbours. 92. Will the Council, after consideration of the Committee’s report, .be closer to a unanimous decision than it was in the months of January, March and May, and closer to the objective which we have ceaselessly sought for many long years, that of a just and lasting peace in which all communities can live and prosper? The reality is complex and might lead us to be sceptical. Should we therefore renounce any attempt at seeking and promoting the elements of a solution which, however difficult, is essential to delay, if not 86. This shows how attitudes have changed and that one can begin to glimpse a solution of this painful problem through an appeal to reason and to the basic 93. The work done by the Committee, of which Tunisia was a member, was constructive, as the report proves. For the first time in the United Nations, we have as complete a dossier as possible on the Paiestinian problem with reasonable and realistic recommendations which allow us to contemplate the future with optimism in regard to relations between the parties to the conflict, while enabling the Palestinian people to enjoy their inalienable rights, which are recognized by the international community. These rights cannot be denied them by Israel, which has benefited from United Nations resolutions, in particular resolution 181 (II), which is its birth certificate, defines its functions and is the international legal basis to which any United Nations solution must refer. 94. The Committee’s recommendations which the Council is invited to consider would, if implemented, make it possible to break the vicious circle in which we now find ourselves when we discuss the Middle East. We venture to hope that the Council wii endorse the Committee’s and will, above ail, avoid altering its recommendations, and in answer to that constructive effort made by our delegations with the co-operation of the PLO, whose realism and spirit of moderation we are pleased to emphasize here, endeavour to formulate a constructive approach, which will strengthen the cause of the martyred Palestinian people and lead to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The next speaker is the representative of Indonesia, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, I deem it very fortunate indeed that in its co.nsideration of a matter to which my delegation attaches great importance, the Council should be guided by you, Sir, an eminent son of Guyana, with which country Indonesia has close relations, particularly in the family of non-aligned nations. You well-known and distinguished contributions to the work of our Organization leave me in no doubt as to your skill and qualities, which will greatly contribute to the success of the work of the Council during the current month. Allow me, therefore, on my own behalf and on behalf of my delegation, to offer you our warmest congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. 97. Allow me also, through you, Sir, to thank the members of the Council for the opportunity to participate in the present debate which my delegation has been given. 98. I would be remiss in my duties if I failed to take the present opportunity to pay a most sincere and well 99. It cannot but be noticeable to ail that the manner in which the Committee carried .out its task was refreshingly different from the methods sometimes followed by committees or bodies of our Organization, which is encouraging. Notwithstanding the great complexity of the problem and the existence of widely divergent views, the Committee made steadfast efforts not to allow its deliberations to degenerate into acrimonious and meaningless debates. Adopting a persistent problem-solving approach, the Committee devoted its efforts to making progress which could be expected to bt acceptable to and at the same time serve the interests of all parties concerned. 100. It gives my delegation great satisfaction that the Committee has brought into focus what has always been the view of Indonesia and of a great many other countries-namely, that the question of Palestine constitutes a root problem of the Middle East question as a whole and that the obstacle to progress in past efforts was largely the fact that this central aspect was not given the consideration it deserved. 101. Pursuant to that policy, Indonesia has always been consistent in its support for the cause of the Palestinians and, consequently, for the participation of the PLO, as the sole representative of the Paiestinian people, in ail discussions regarding their destiny. During Indonesia’s membership in the Council, my delegation pointed out on several occasions that the solution of the Middle East problem cannot be separated from the elimination of its root causes, which are mainly twofold. 102. The first is the injustices inflicted upon the Palestinian people, which for 30 years, as is stated in paragraph 13 of the Committee’s report, forced hundreds of thousands of them to live “in destitution... not once, but twice or even three times in their iifetime. This tragedy has been recognized by the international community as one that should no longer be tolerated”. The injustices inflicted upon the Palestinians must be redressed. 103. The second root cause is the continued occupation by force of arms of territories belonging to the three neighbouring Arab countries. The inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is a generally recognized principle which has been frequently enunciated in various Security Council resolutions. I cannot but believe that even Israel does not harbour 104. The Committee did not fail to recognize the basic concern of Israel. In paragraph 45 of its report, it refers to a proposal that the Security Council not only should demand the urgent withdrawal of Israel from Palestine territories occupied since 1967 but also could provide international guarantees for the peace and security of all-and I repeat “all”-States in the Middle East. “The growing opposition of the Palestinian population to occupation,.as well as the outcome of the municipal elections recently held in the West Bank and other occupied areas, had more than a symbolic significance in this respect.” 105. My delegation does not consider it necessary to elaborate on the first report of the Committee. The Chairman and Rapporteur of the Committee, and other speakers who have preceded me, have already done so more eloquently than I could expect to do myself. Allow me, however, to reiterate what in the view of my delegation constitutes the essence, or the thrust, of the report. 110. I earnestly share the ‘belief expressed by the Chairman of the Committee, when he presented the report to the Council that: “The Israeli leaders have too much imagination and too great a sense of political responsibility not to understand that time is working against them. Unfortunately, we must recognize the fact that they are now beginning to count far too many lost opportunities.” [1924th meeting. pm-a. 47.1 106. It is, in the first place, an appeal to the Council, while, on the other hand, it is also a warning. The report appeals to the Council-the body entrusted by the international community with the most influential role with regard to international peace and securitynot to forsake that trust, but to discharge the responsibility incumbent upon it, to make serious efforts and to take concrete steps towards an over-all settlement of the Palestinian problem. 111. As a non-member of the Council and when not directly involved in a dispute under consideration by the Council, Indonesia usually does not intervene in its debates. The deep solidarity felt by the people of Indonesia towards the Arab peoples in general and the Palestinian people in particular, and also the fact that Indonesia is a member of the Committee, make it incumbent upon my delegation to participate in the present deliberations of the Council. In fact, Indonesia’s solidarity with the Arab peoples in the common struggle for the restitution of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and the restoration of freedom and justice in the Middle East is a matter of great pride to us. That solidarity and our unflinching support for the demands of freedom and justice in Palestine are not based upon hostility towards any other human entity, but, as stated in the declaration adopted by the Second Islamic Summit Conference in Lahore in February 1974, it is based “on the positive and eternal precepts of equality, fraternity and dignity of man, freedom from discrimination ‘and exploitation, and struggle against oppression and injustice”. 107. My delegation believes that the report of the Committee -could usefully assist the endeavours of the Council in the search for and implementation of such settlement. The proposals and recommendations contained in the report cannot but be termed constructive and realistic as regards the search for practical means whereby progress towards peace could be achieved and redress could be given a people which has been subjected to injustice for three decades. It is also our belief that those proposals will permit a mitigation of the genuinely felt concern of Israel. 108. Besides being an appeal, the report serves also as a warning. Those who can clearly see the facts as they are must be able to recognize that time is running out, that a peaceful and comprehensive solution of the Palestinian problem must be found soon, that the people of Palestine cannot wait for ever for the United Nations to redress the injustice that has been inflicted upon them for so long.

First of all I have great pleasure in welcoming you, Mr. President, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of a friendly 113. Speaking on 14 June [1926rh meeting] in the discussion of the Cyprus question, I had great pleasure in welcoming your outstanding representative to the United Nations and the Security Council, Ambassador Jackson. At that time I pointed out that the Soviet people was following the efforts of the friendly people of Guyana with sympathy, and wished them continued success in the further consolidation of their independence and ensure in their efforts to the social and economic progress of their country. The tenth anniversary of the independence of Guyana is an occasion on which the Soviet people would like to express their conviction that the friendly relations and co-operation between our two countries will be developed further and expanded, to the benefit of both peoples and in the interests of universal peace. I felt I had to repeat what I said at that time, since you have joined us today and are presiding over the meeting of the Council. 114. I shoud also like to express our condolences to the delegation of the United States on an irreparable loss, the death of the United States Ambassador in Lebanon and of a Counsellor of the Embassy. As an Ambassador who has so often been the victim of attacks in the host country when the Soviet Mission in New York was attacked, I know only too well what feelings are aroused when hostile elements make attempts on the lives of ambassadors. It is therefore with particular sympathy that I should like to express my condolences for the death of the United States Ambassador and his Counsellor. 115. I should now like to make a brief statement concerning one of the comments contained in the statement made today by the representative of the United Kingdom. Mr. Richard. I regret that he has left, but I think that my remarks will be reported to him. 116. I am grateful to Mr. Richard for referring to me by name in his statement and the three organically interrelated elements which the Soviet Government is firmly convinced should be the basis for any radical political settlement of the Middle East conflict. Unfortunately, Mr. Richard permitted himself, to put it mildly; a certain freedom in his interpretation of those principles and attempted to create the impression in the minds of the Council members that those three principles formulated by the Soviet Government coincided with the three principles he himself set forth as constituting the position of the Government of the United Kingdom on a settlement of the Middle East conflict. However, the most sursory ‘examination of the three principles of the Soviet Government and 117. Our first principle is as follows: “First, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied as a result of Israel’s agression in 1967” [S/12063, annex. point 31. In the first principle as stated by Mr. Richard, the British Government does not include the word ,“all”. That word is conspicuous by its absence, and that omission means that that the Israeli troops would not have to be withdrawn from all the Arab territories occupied as a result of Israel’s aggression in 1967. Therefore, there is no basis for asserting or for attempting to create the impression that the position of the Soviet Union and that of the United Kingdom with regard to this important key principle for a Middle East settlement are identical. 118. An equally important discrepancy exists with regard to our second principle, which reads as follows: “satisfaction of the legitimate national demands of the Arab people of Palestine, including their inalien- : able right to establish their own State” [ibid.]. That is the Soviet principle. It not only provides for satisfaction of the legitimate national demands of the Arab people of Palestine, but also recognizes that people’s inalienable right to establish its own State. In the third British principle, on the other hand, we find only a nebulous formula-the kind of formula that is often typical of British diplomacy-with regard to the recognition of “the right of the Palestinian people to the expression of their national identity.” That nebulous formula has nothing whatever in common with the clear-cut, definite formula contained in the second Soviet principle, which calls for satisfaction of the legitimate national demands of the Arab people of Palestine, including their inalienable right to establish their own State. 119. The third Soviet principle provides for “international guarantees for the security and inviolability of the frontiers of all Middle Eastern States, and their right to independent existence and development” [ibid.]. But in the British principle there is no reference to,such international guarantees. 120. That brief, purely preliminary comparison between the three Soviet principles and the three British principles for a settlement of the Middle East conflict shows that there are serious differences. I would stress the existence of these extremely serious, substantial divergencies, since this demonstrates that there was very little ground for Mr. Richard to state this morning that the differences are only minor, relating to “the use of this or that word” [WC pam. 11 nhore]. The fact is that there are differences 121. I felt it necessary to make that brief explanation in order to eliminate any possible doubts or misunderstanding.

I wish briefly to reply to Ambassador Malik. 123. I have, of course, taken very careful note of Ambassador Malik’s remarks, which I shall convey to Ambassador Richard. I am sorry that Ambassador Richard was not able to hear Ambassador Malik’s comments personally. I regret that Ambassador Malik did not find it possible to warn us that he intended to make his comments, because had he done so Ambassador Richard might have arranged to be here. 124. I do not wish at this time to make any comments on the substance of Mr. Malik’s remarks. I would merely draw attention to the precise words used by Mr. Richard in his statement earlier today. He said: “There is. . . a very wide measure of agreement in the Council on the fundamentals of those three principles”-that is to say, the principles to which he had just referred- “even if there are differences that may divide some or others of us on the use of this or that word.” [Ibid.] He went on: “But what I think must be emphasized is that those three principles have to be taken together.” [ibid.] Mr. Richard then quoted from a recent statement by Mr. Malik in which he had said that the three principles needed to be seen as an integrated whole. 126. I wished merely to make that point clear.

It was precisely that point in Mr. Richard’s statement that I had in mind, and that is why I explained that there existed not minor differences, but differences in substance in approaching a.Middle East settlement.

My delegation would like to join others in expressing pleasure at having you among us today, Sir, presiding over our deliberations. 129. My delegation would like also to .extend its sincere appreciation to the representatives of the United Kingdom, Pakistan, France, Tunisia and’ the Soviet Union and to the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States for their expressions of sympathy and the other remarks they made concerning the death in Beirut on 16 June of Ambassador Meloy and his two colleagues. The meeting rose at 1.20 p.m. N&es HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section. New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences depositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous aup& de votre libraire ou adressez-vous B : Nations Unies. Section des ventes, New York ou Gentve. KASE IIOjLYYHTb ZI3AAHLIR OPI’AHU 3AUW11 Oli’bEAHHEHHhIX HAIIZIR HaAaHm Opramrsasuu Obze~~~e~xb~x Haud MOH(HO ~ynwrb B KHUXH~IX Marasnfax w at-e~~m~ax BO BC~X pakoHax Mupa. Hasonu~e cnpaeitu 06 WSA~HWRX B aauxM KXWXCHOM r.xaraaxHe wnw nnmn~e no anpecy: Opraxxwsasuff O~~~XUH~HHJJX Haqwfi. Ce~qw~ no npo~~axe mAawul. Hbm-Ffop~ HJIW Xexzeea. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estan en venta en librerlas y casas distribuidoras en todas pat-&s del mundo. Cons&e a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Scccion de Ventas. Nueva York o Ginebra.