S/PV.2072 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken by the Council at its 2071st meeting, I invite the representatives of Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen to participate in the debate without the right to vote. 2. In accordance with the decision taken at the same meeting, I invite the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. At the invitation of the President, Mr. TuCni (Lebanon), Mr. Herzog (Israel) and Mr. Terzi (Palestine Liberation I Crganization) took places at the Council table and Mr. Abdel Meg&d (Egypt), Mr Nuseibeh (Jordan), Mr. Kikhia [Libyan Arab Jamahiriya). Mr. Al-Hussamy (Syrian Arab Republic) and Mr- AI-Haddad (Yemen) 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 a letter from the representative of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam in which he requests to be invited to participate in the discussion. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite him to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in conformity with rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Cu Dinh Ba (Viet Nam) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber.

I wish to draw the attention of members to a new document regarding the matter under discussion, issued under the symbol S/ 12609. 5’. The first speaker is the representative of Egypt. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, I should like to thank you and the other members of the Council for inviting me to participate in the debate on this serious and dangerous matter by which my country cannot be left unaffected. 7. Once again the Council is faced with a serious situation in the Middle East resulting from the deliberate policy and irresponsible actions of Israel’s gradual expansion. The consequences of this naked Israeli invasion of Lebanon are not confined to Lebanon but extend to the whole area and adversely affect the efforts aimed at reaching a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. This Israeli aggression against Lebanon was very aptly described by the Secretary- General as a violation of the boundaries of a sovereign State and the massive use of force, whatever the motivation of this action may have been. 8. This is indeed the case, since, on the one hand, the Lebanese Government, in the letter addressed by its representative to the Secretary-General [S/12602], has declared that Lebanon had no connexion with the operation on the road between Haifa and Tel Aviv or with any other commando operation, and, on the other hand, the 9. This is not the first time that the Council has discussed the subject of Israeli attacks on, incursions into and invasions of Lebanon. The Council has adopted many resolutions. Let me refer only to some of them. There was resolution 262 (1968), which was adopted unanimously and in which the Council condemned Israel for its premeditated military action in violation of its obligations under the Charter and the cease-fire resolutions and solemnly issued a warning to Israel that if such acts were to be repeated, the Council would have to consider further steps to give effect to its decisions. There was resolution 270 (1969), in which the Council condemned the premeditated air attack by Israel on villages in southern Lebanon in violation of its obligations under the Charter and Council resolutions. There was resolution 280 (1970), in which the Council deplored the failure of Israel to abide by resolutions 262 (1968) and 270 (1969), once again condemned Israel for its premeditated military action, declared that such armed attacks could no longer be tolerated and repeated its solemn warning. 10. The list of Council resolutions goes on and on. There are also resolutions 313 (1972), 317 (1972), 332 (1973), 337 (1973) and 347 (1974). These resolutions do not exhaust the list of aggressive acts carried out by Israel against the political independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon, for there are many cases of which the Council was not seized. The latest case took place on 9 November 1977, in which more than 100 persons were killed. 11. All those attacks by Israel had two characteristics: first, they were premeditated attacks, as the Council determined in its resolutions; secondly, they were coupled with the use of massive force which resulted in great loss of civilian life. 12. But the latest Israeli action, although it followed the pattern of previous attacks, was greater in scope and magnitude. The Israeli generals pride themselves on their accuracy in hitting refugee camps and other civilian targets, where untold losses have occurred among innocent civilians. I will not go into details about the Israeli attack; my colleague the representative of Lebanon has done that in the complaint he sent to the Secretary-General on 15 March [S/12602] and in his statement before the Council [2071st meeting]. But I should like to draw the attention of the Council to the report of 15 March of the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) on the status of the cease-fire in the Israel- Lebanon sector [S/l1663/Add.53], In spite of the limited manpower at the disposal of the Chief of Staff, and in spite of the fact that some of his posts came under fire and were destroyed, he was able to report on some aspects of the Israeli attack and in particular on its ferocity and indiscriminate nature. The reports of the Chief of Staff of UNTSO on what Israel calls its incursions into Lebanese territory 13. A permanent presence of Israeli forces on Lebanese territory has always been a cherished aim of Israeli policy. The scope and nature of the latest Israeli act of aggression, coupled with various statements by Israeli leaders concerning the establishment of what they call a security belt in Southern Lebanon from which Israel will certainly not withdraw, go very far towards proving the true &tent of Israel’s latest endeavours. 14. The statements that emanate from Israel to the effect that it has no intention of occupying Lebanese territory are belied by the facts. The Council should bear in mind that similar statements have been made before by Israeli leaders, yet 10 years after the occupation of territories belonging to three States Members of the United Nations those territories remain occupied, with the addition now of territories belonging to a fourth Member State, namely Lebanon. The Council should by now be wary of such statements and should assert itself in the face of the arrogant behaviour of Israel. 15. Egypt considers the massive Israeli aggression carried out by land, air and sea to be a serious development in the course of events in the Middle East and a new Israeli violation of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. It also adds a new obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. 16. Israel’s resort once again to acts of aggression is all the more serious since those acts are aimed at liquidating the Palestinians because they are Palestinians. Those acts of aggression constitute a systematic attempt at the ektemination of the Palestinian people, and a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of a Member State. In this context, the Foreign Minister of Egypt, in his statement on 15 March, pointed out the gravity of the statements made by the Israeli Chief of Staff on Israel’s intention of establishing a so-called Israeli security belt inside Lebanese territory. 17. Those acts and aggressive policies mean that Israel still believes that its security can be achieved through aggression, occupation and expansion, rather than through a just and lasting peace in the Middle East based on the principles of the Charter and recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. 18. In view of the policy of the Israeli Government, its attempts to impose interpretations of resolution 242 (1967) which have no basis in logic or law, its continued policy of establishing settlements and its aggrcssion against both Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, which Egypt strongly condemns, Egypt affirms that these developments impede peace efforts and herald more serious developments in the future. 19. Egypt therefore believes that the whole world, and especially the five permanent members of the Security 20. It is now apparent that Israeli attacks on Lebanon in recent years have not brought security to Israel but have led only to untold losses among the civilian population, whether in Israel or elsewhere, and also to acts of violence against and inside Israel. The fallacy of Israeli aggression on the pretext of self-defence is also apparent. This vicious circle will not be broken unless Israel comes to grips with the core of the Middle East problem and addresses itself directly and quickly to the resolution of the Palestinian question. Israel can no longer deny or postpone a&now- Iedgement of the truth: that there is a Palestinian people which has the same right to live in peace and security as all other peoples, Security will not prevail unless a just peace is based on complete Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories and unless there is a solution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects, recognizing the rights of the Falestinian people. That has been Egypt’s declared policy; it is Egypt’s policy; and it will remain our policy in future. Let that be crystal clear in everybody’s mind. 27. The Council is dealing with a problem which has more than any other preoccupied the whole world. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon on 14 March is derived from and is a consequence of the tragedy which befell the people of Palestine in 1948. 28. The present invasion by Israel of Lebanon’s territory has by far exceeded previous raids on Lebanon, which are well known for their frequency, ruthlessness and destructiveness. It is a well-co-ordinated and premeditated invasion in which the navy, air force and army are participating. It has shown the extent of Israel’s unbridled lust for new land and new territorial gains. The area has never seen tranquillity, and blood is intermittently spilled there thanks to Israel’s scorn for human rights and the territorial integrity of its neighbours. The Government of Israel launched its forces to invade Lebanon on 14 and 15 March, but the invasion was not arranged overnight; it was prepared a long time before its implementation. 29. There has always been an Israeli plan to invade Lebanon, in conformity with the expansionist designs of zionism. The Israeli Government, in order to avoid the political complications of invading Southern Lebanon in the presence of Arab deterrent troops, objected to the deployment of those troops in that part of Lebanon. It wanted to exercise its hegemony over the area and at the same time maintain its freedom of action. If Israel had no designs on Southern Lebanon, why did it oppose the deployment of Arab deterrent troops there? Why did it make such a hue and cry about the red line? The mission of the Arab troops in Lebanon is the maintenance of law and order in the aftermath of the bloody civil war. 21. Denying the most basic of human rights to the Palestinian people, namely, its right to self-determination, will, unfortunately, only lead to more violence and bloodshed, Nobody-Israel least of all-will benefit from such a shortsighted policy. It will only lead to more tension in the area and endanger peace and security in the world. 22. As I said earlier in my statement, the situation is serious and calls for immediate action on the @art of the Council. It is my Government’s conviction that the first order of business before the Council is to call urgently for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanon and for Israel to cease forthwith its encroachment on the territorial integrity of a Member State\ Every hour that passes without action from the Council adds to the loss of life among innocent people. Such prompt action is dictated by the gravity of the situation and imposed on the Council by the Charter. 30. It is obvious that Israel wants unlimited freedom to act as it pleases in Southern Lebanon, and it has acted ruthlessly and recklessly. The casualties are numerouscivilians, innocent women and children are being killed even at this very moment, The figures are rising every hour. According to The New York Times of today, the Pope has expressed indignation at this outrage. 23. The Council should not allow itself to be distracted from dealing with the very real situation of the occupation by Israel of Lebanese territory by permitting dilatory tactics to consume precious time. 31. Israel’s military operations are expanding far and wide throughout the country. The damage done to Lebanon’s national wealth and property is enormous. Lawlessness has been the unavoidable ensuing result. The raids have brought about the indiscriminate massacre of both Lebanese and Palestinians, the majority of whom are not involved in this endless cycle of bloodshed. It is interesting that such a massacre should have prompted the Prime Minister of Israel and his impressive entourage to pose smilingly before the international press on Lebanese soil. He apparently revels in seeing the blood of innocent people being spilled now, since he never shied away from shedding innocent blood when he was in charge of the terrorist organization known as the Irgun Zvai Leumi. I saw hjm on television, and he looked very nostalgic for his own personal past. 24. The Council might also wish to request the Secretary General to report on Israel’s compliance with the decisions to be taken by the Council on the withdrawal of the Israeli forces. The Secretary-General would be assisted in this respect by the United Nations presence in the area, that is, the members of UNTSO stationed in the Israel-Lebanon sector. Therefore, members of UNTSO should return to the posts from which they were evicted. 25. We believe that the Council should remain seized of the present situation in Lebanon until all its decisions are complied with-first and foremost that concerning the immediate and total withdrawal of Israel. 33. There is absolutely no justification for the wanton attack on Lebanon; the attack violates all the sacred provisions enshrined in the Charter. The territorial integrity and the political sovereignty of Lebanon cannot be subject to the whims and caprices of Israel’s militant leaders. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon is a challenge to the United Nations, to the Security Council and to world public opinion. It demonstrates complete disregard for the rule of law and shakes the very foundations of the structure of international security. It makes a mockery of the United Nations. In his statement yesterday (207Ist meeting/, the representative of Jsrael implicitly accused the Council of being a kangaroo court. 34. Israel occupies Southern Lebanon and resorts to deceit and dissimulation in its attempt to stay there indefinitely. It is already expanding towards the north, according to today’s news. This is intolerable; it takes the world back to the law of the jungle, in which might prevails over right. NO Member State can condone such flagrant aggression; to do so would tear apart the fabric of international society. The first imperative for the Security Council is to demand the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon are being violated. Lebanon is a peaceful country with an outstanding record of respect for the Charter. The Council should therefore condemn Israel for its barbaric action in Lebanon, whose sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are gravely endangered by the wanton aggression carried out by Israel. That aggression should be unequivocally condemned and eliminated. 35. The Israelis should not be allowed to squat on Lebanese territory. This constitutes an outright invasion of the territory of a Member State. It will launch the Middle East on a path fraught with incalculably grave consequences. It will kill what is left of the glimpses of hope for reaching a peaceful settlement, It will create a new situation in which the forces of conflict will triumph. It cannot be tolerated because, I repeat, it is an invasion of the territory of a Member State. It will bring havoc to the area and ruin aII prospects of peace and stability. The Israeli invasion sets a dangerous precedent and makes brute force the sole arbiter in international relations. If States are allowed to take the law into their own hands, then the whole fabric of international society will crumble. This is a dangerous exercise, which threatens the very existence of independent and sovereign States, on which international society is founded. 36. NO one can find happiness in the death of innocent people except those who seek to reap the fruits of their aggression. The invasion of Lebanon by Israel was designed to annihilate the people of Palestine. It has rightly been described as a campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people. Terrorism is bound to produce counter-resistance. 37. The Prime Minister of Israel, as well as his Cabinet, calls the Wesi Bank and Gaza “Judaea and Samaria” and has repeatedly declared that this piece of land is part and parcel of ancient Israel from which his forces can never withdraw. He wants to revive King David’s kingdom. He admires the ancient and glorious past of what he calls his “kith and kin”. He has his own interpretation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) on the question of withdrawal-an interpretation which renders the resolution inapplicable to the West Bank and Gaza. He brags about his plan for civil rule for the Palestinians under Israeli occupation and describes it as the best arrangement they could have. He scoffs at their right to self-determination and denies them the ,right to have a State of their own. He describes their leaders as a “bunch of terrorists”, ignoring the fact that they are merely fighting to regain their lawful rights, which he usurped. Meanwhile, the United Nations has recognized the right of the people of Palestine to self-determination and to a State of their own in Palestine. Only the naive would expect the Palestinians to accept the fate Mr. Begin prescribes for them. Life in refugee camps that subsist on international help is surely not a healthy substitution for statehood. No wonder the Palestinians resent statelessness and life in the wilderness. The only remedy for their problems is the attainment of freedom in their own country. They live on international contributions that barely keep their heads above water. 38. Mr. Begin has made it more difficult than ever for the Palestinians to have a State of their own. It is understandable if despair leads them to acts which reflect their resentment and bitterness, They are not superhumanalthough their tribulations and grievances are beyond human endurance. Mr. Begin has deprived them of any hope for a better life with dignity in their homeland. 39. This fundamental question must be asked: what is next? It has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that the Palestinian people wilI not acquiesce in their uprooting and privation. Like all peoples, they are entitled to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination. There is no point in talking about the stability of the Middle East if, first and foremost, the aspirations of the people of Palestine are not fulfilled. Israel will never attain peace through expansion, raids or occupation of other peoples’ territory. Only the attainment by the peopIe of Palestine of the right to self-determination will ensure coexistence and, subsequently, peace. The military power of Israel may delay the fulfilment of these lofty goals, but it will never liquidate the resistance of the Palestinians. It can bombard their camps but it will never crush their de termination to achieve independence. 40. The Palestinians have been treated for 30 years as subhumans, living in conditions that barely keep body and 41. The Government of Israel claims that the West Bank and Gaza are part of ancient Israel, and it states that it therefore will not terminate its occupation of these territories. It states also that the Syrian Golan Heights must be retained for its security. That is a dangerous approach to international relations. If a State uses the need for security as a pretext for expansion, it definitely must encroach upon the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbours. That is exactly the situation the Council is facing now. 42. The invasion of Lebanon and the subsequent occupation of its territory in the south has been carried out on the pretext of obtaining more security for Israel. The same classic pattern used earlier against Syria, Egypt and the West Bank is being scrupulously applied in Lebanon, The Israelis claim that Southern Lebanon is vital to Israel’s security. Israel may try in stages to occupy all the Arab countries on the grounds that such a measure is dictated by its security needs. Reliance on brute force and military might for the acquisition of territory is contrary to the Charter. Only through mutual understanding do borders become secure. Israel has long coveted Southern Lebanon. It struck on the flimsiest pretext. Soon it will say that even the occupation of Southern Lebanon does not guarantee its security and that consequently it will expand further towards the north. This is not a conclusion made in haste. The precedents speak for themselves. It happened in 1956, when Israel invaded Egypt on that pretext. It has been much emphasized as an excuse for retaining the Syrian Golan Heights since 1967. And time and again it will be offered to a world that is willing to condone expansion and territorial aggrandizement. There is a lot of apathy in the world in the face of brute force. 43, There are two aspects to the illegal occupation of Southern Lebanon. The first is Israel’s determination to destroy the national identity of the Palestinian people. Israel is chasing Palestinians wherever they may be-in refugee camps, in the valleys or in the mountains. It wants to send them out of this world, to erase them from this earth. Perhaps it wants to send them to Mars or to the moon. The other aspect, or course, is Israel’s desire to plant new settlements in Southern Lebanon and its thirst for new land. If the Israelis are reluctant to abandon their settlements in the scorched sands of the Sinai Desert, how can one expect them to give up the fertile valley of Southern Lebanon? 44. The United Nations has always been responsible for the life and destiny of the Palestinian people, It was the United Nations which partitioned. Palestine; it was the United Nations which upheld the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to a State of their own. It was the world 45. It was the Charter which proscribed the acquisition of territory by force, an affirmation of the fact that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the occupied territories are null and void. The Security Council cannot now acquiesce in the occupation of Southern Lebanon by Israel, 46. The Council must act, and act swiftly, It must act in the name of the national identity of the Palestinian people and their human rights. It must act to prevent genocide. It must act to preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. It must act to maintain the rule of law. It must act to preserve the noble principles enshrined in the Charter, and it must act before its status declines to that of a debating society deprived of any authority or efficiency, It must act to prevent the Middle East from becoming the scene of endless strife and anarchy. It must act immediately; it must act now.

Once again the Security Council is meeting as a result of serious events which have heightened the concern of the international community about the very precarious situation prevailing in the Middle East. Once again my delegation feels it must here deplore the blind and dangerous chain of violence in that part of the world. While it is clear that France regards terrorist acts as totally reprehensible, it is also clear that we have the same attitude towards acts of reprisal, Attempts to justify or explain the one by the other necessarily lead to an unacceptable situation of constant escalation, causing much loss of human life and challenging and endangering international security. These futile and bloody outbreaks hamper efforts to quieten passions and to . end the conflict. They further reduce the chances of attaining peace inasmuch as they involve acts of force against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a State. 48. In the case of Lebanon, a peaceful country with which France is bound by so many historical and personal ties, my delegation cannot but with force and conviction express its deep concern and anxiety. After its ordeals of the recent past, Lebanon’s population is above all familiar with the tragedies of war and exodus. It behoves us immediately to end that intolerable situation and consider all necessary measures to ensure that the violence will not recur. We are, of course, desirous of furthering the best interests of the population, but also of preserving the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. 49. For these reasons my country joins in the call for a cease-fire and the immediate withdrawal of the Israeli troops now in Lebanese territory. The French delegation is ready attentively to consider any proposal-including the stationing of a United Nations force-aimed at restoring 50. In conclusion I should like to stress that the decisions the Council is called upon to take cannot in themselves provide a definitive safeguard against new outbursts of violence in the region. We should recall that the consideration of the situation in Southern Lebanon cannot be divorced from the broader question of the quest for peace in the Middle East. Only in the global context, with account being taken of all aspects of the question, and with the participation of the parties concerned, will it be possible truly to ensure peace and to protect from further troubles countries and populations which have already suffered too long. 51, Mr. HARRIMAN (Nigeria): I believe that the Council and all who have listened to the debate so far will have seen a clear pattern in the pronouncements of the aggressor and the victims of aggression. 52. We listened to the emphatic righteous cry of the representative of Lebanon, He said “Let my people live”. I believe,we should let the people of Lebanon live. They have suffered too long from the lack of concern of the international community and from the intrigues of Israel in the Middle East. 53. The action of Israel on 14 and I.5 March was a full-scale war against Lebanon. There were massive’ land, sea and air attacks, and my delegation hereby reiterates its condemnation already conveyed by the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries [see S/12609], We shall continue to condemn Israel as long as it continues to be the vehicle of instability in the Middle East. 54. Judging from the voting pattern yesterday, it was easy to see that, whether with its connivance or not, Israel has been armed to promote the interests of the West in the Canal area, just as South Africa and its camps in Rhodesia have also been armed by the West to protect their interests in the southern tip of Africa. 55. The existence of the Pretoria-Tel Aviv axis has been very clear to my delegation and to the Special Committee against Apartheid of which I am Chairman. That axis-an axis of collaboration, an axis of tcrrorization-continues to intimidate and harass local populations in the neighbouring areas in southern Africa and the Middle East. They continue to terrorize neighbouring States in the same manner and according to the same pattern. The acceptance by both of the notion that the policy of “hot pursuit”, leading to the invasion of neighbouring territories, the destruction of life and property and the killing of innocent refugees is now the new world order of things is nothing but gangsterism and racism; it is against the fundamental principle of the territorial integrity of States. 56. Israel and its allies even wish to mount, outside the ambit of the United Nations, an international squad to police the world against terrorism. They have done so in 57. Israel’s refusal to co-operate with the world to introduce a yardstick for social justice and to affirm the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland in determining the future of the Middle East will continue to lead to the destabilization of that area and to an unhappy state of affairs in that part of the world. As in southern Africa, where the racists continue to herd the owners of the land into reserves, so Israel continues to deprive the owners of the land and to settle Arab lands with Israelis. Like South Africa and Rhodesia, Israel continues to abuse power and to express in words and deeds its disdain for international law. 58. In today’s world, where we are debating the noble issues of human rights and larger freedoms, it is, to my delegation, an anachronism to debate national rights. They are clear in the Charter and in international legal codes. 59. I remember vaguely that sometime in the 1960s Abba Eban made a similar statement to that made last night by Ambassador Herzog [2071st meeting/. I have a strong impression that the representative of Israel read that statement over and formulated his remarks yesterday along similar lines. Abba Eban had said at that time that Israel did not wish to remain in the occupied lands; they are still there today. I think the only difference between Abba Eban’s statement and that of the representative of Israel lies in the factor of arrogance and the abuse of privilege-the privilege of being allowed to speak before the Council. The invectives, the vituperative and bad language that he utilized in condemning non-Western members of the Council who disagreed with his belief that the Palestine Liberation Organization should be excluded is typical of that arrogance and contempt for propriety-a contempt that has led to and perpetuated the threat to international peace and security in the Middle East. 60. To quote a few examples, Ambassador Herzog said that the Council, as represented by the majority, would not evaluate the issue on its merits. He went on to say that we had forfeited our right to pass judgement. He talked about blatant partiality that has cast doubts on the credibility of the Council, about double standards, about the Council’s betrayal of its principles and purpose, about prevarication and doubIe-talk and about the erosion of the prestige and moral standing of the Council. I suppose the Council should have agreed that the PLO, the victim of aggression, should not sit in the Council chamber, I believe we would then have had encomiums and praise from the Israeli delegation. 61. As Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Drafting of an International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, I wish to say that I regard the comments by Ambassador Herzog concerning the action of that Cotnmittee as unfortunate. Half the problems that we face in that Committee concern things such as how one defines “terrorism”. Israel’s invasion of innocent Lebanon is an act of terrorism. The Committee working against the taking of 62. Here I wish to reiterate that my Government does not believe that any liberation movement should damage its prestige by taking hostages, and that the noble fights for liberation should be based on very high values. I believe that the PLO at no stage in its war for liberation has abused privilege; at no stage has it terrorized; it is at war. 63. My delegation joins the non-aligned movement in unequivocally condemning Israel and in calling on Israel to withdraw unconditionally and immediately from Lebanon.

The next speaker is the representative of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement,

Mr. President, I would express to you and, through you, to the other members of the Council my thanks for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate. I have requested to be allowed to speak before the Council to express our full support for and solidarity with the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples in their struggle against the Israeli act of flagrant aggression. 66. During these recent days, the world’s people have witnessed the most barbarous aggression, launched by Israeli land, air and naval forces against Lebanese territory, causing great losses in human lives and property among the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples. This is a blatant act of direct aggression against an independent and sovereign State, in contravention of the Charter and the elementary norms of international law. 67. These recent developments in the Middle East situation have given clearer proof of the systematic manoeuvres of Israel and its supporters, First, Israel is trying by every means to negate the role of the Palestinian people and its only genuine representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization and to exclude the PLO from a solution of the Middle East problem, Secondly, it is doing its best to destroy the international prestige of the PLO. Thirdly, Israel is striving, at any cost, to annihilate the liberation farces of Palestine. Fourthly, it is doing its utmost to SOW confusion and dissension among the Arab countries and to deceive world public opinion, 68. We consider this the true substance of the recent events which have taken place systematically in the Middle East. What the representative of Israel presented before the Council was nothing but a justification of the crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians and other Arab peoples. 69. In reality, the recent Israeli armed attacks and invasion are not the first of their kind: this is the tenth attack since 20 February 1973 against Lebanon. Obviously, it is a vicious manoeuvre aimed at achieving a solution of the Middle East question without the participation of the PLO. 70. During the last session of the General Assembly, most of the representatives speaking on the situation in the 71. The recent Israeli armed invasion has aroused great indignation among the world’s people. The Vietnamese delegation has joined its voice to those of the members of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries to condemn this blatant aggression against Lebanon and reiterate its Full support for and solidarity with the Palestinian people and the PLO in this critical period of struggle. 72. In the face of Israeli obduracy and Israel’s continued acts of aggression and expansion, the Palestinian people will undergo more difficulties and hardships in their just struggle. But the more they meet with difficulties, the more they become united and the more they receive international solidarity; certainly they will win final victory. 73. The Vietnamese people consistently and resolutely support the struggle of the Palestinian people and other Arab people to regain all the territories occupied by Israel and to restore the fundamental national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to set up a Palestinian State, 74. At the extraordinary meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries on the situation in the Middle East and the question of Palestine last September, our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs said: “The 30-year-long history of the Middle East problem demonstrates that no force can annihilate the Palestinian people’s forces of resistance; any scheme designed to intensify Israel’s strength and weaken the Palestinian forces will only set back the peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem. But so long as Israel’s will for aggression is encouraged and not yet defeated, and so long as the Palestinian people’s national rights are not yet fully respected, peace in the Middle East will merely be illusory or fragile.” 75. We call upon the Council to condemn this new act of armed aggression by Israel and to take the most appropriate and effective measures to compel Israel immediately to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, put an end to its attacks against Lebanon and respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Arab countries.

The next speaker is the representative of Yemen, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 77. Mr, ALHADDAD (Yemen): Mr. President, I wish to thank you and the members of the Security Council for giving me this opportunity to speak before the Council in these critical circumstances when the international civilized community has been once again confronted with a grave situation resulting from the recent brutal Israeli-Zionist aggression against the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples. danger to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon, a State Member of the United Nations. They have been the targets of criminal and premeditated acts of aggression by the Zionist-Israeli terrorists, in complete defiance of and disregard for the priIICip]eS of international law,. and in violation of the basic norms Of international civdrzed behaviour. 79. The delegation of Yemen has no Intention of dwelling on the history of Zionist terrorism in the Middle East. But the indisputable fact remains that the Israeli-Zionist entity was born of terrorism and cold-blooded murder, which have continued to be the policy and practice of that entity since then. The storming of the King David Hotel at Jerusalem, the barbaric massacre of the Deir Yassin villagers, the brutal bombardments of the Babr Al-Bakar primary school in Egypt and the unprecedented downing of the Libyan civil aircraft in which 115 innocent civilian passengers were killed are only a few examples of the State terrorism preached and practised by the Zionist authorities. 80. My delegation, whose Government and people have unshakable faith in the United Nations and in the principles of the Charter, deplores in the strongest terms the arrogant and indecent performance of the Zionist representative yesterday afternoon before this august body whose duty is the maintenance of international peace and security, We therefore demand that those debased remarks by which the Zionist representative tried, with such mockery and slander, to downgrade the integrity and credibility of the Organization and its sovereign membership should be eliminated, to say the least, from the record of yesterday’s proceedings. 81. In the name of my Government, I earnestly demand that the Council should act immediately and effectively to bring about the immediate cessation of aggression and the unconditional withdrawal of Zionist forces from Southern Lebanon. The Council is in duty bound to bring a halt to the war of genocide being waged against the people of Palestine. 82. The road to peace in the Middle East starts with the redressing of the injustice inflicted on the people of Palestine. First, any peace initiative should aim at a just peace that is permanent and that recognizes the national right of the people of Palestine, whose representative is the “Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal? “If we agree that the armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of the international order.” 84. I wish to say that the soul of the late President may rest assured that the international civilized community will not let the Zionist aggression go unpunished and that the International order will never be turned back by the Zionist aggressor. May the soul of President Eisenhower rest in peace and comfort.

The representative of Lebanon has asked to speak before we adjourn this meeting, and I now call on him.

I want to say only two things. First, I want to express my thanks to you, Mr. President, for your patience in bearing with us, to the Secretary- General for the documentation he has provided and the concern he has consistently shown, and to the various members who have expressed what I believe is the near-consensus-if not the consensus-sentiment of this body. 87. I also want to say that people die on weekends. They die on the Sabbath and they die on Sundays. I wish that the Chair could find it possible, by some means within the r&s of procedure here, to have us reach some form cf agreement that would bring an early end to the deaths of people, to the exodus of thousands of refugees that are plodding into my country’s capital, and to the chaotic situation that may again overwhelm us, enslaved by the logic of despair, a situation that this international cornmunity would then very much regret and suffer from. The meeting rose at 12.45 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS Unite4 Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Lea publications des Nations Units sont on vente clans les librairies et les agences dkpositaires du mondo ontier. Informez-vous aupr&s de votre libraire ou adressez-vous b : Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou C&n&e. KAIC IIOJlNULiTh ElBAAHMR OPrAHH BAItHI% OIS76EAMHRHHhIX HAI&MH COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estin en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Secci6n de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1.00 (or equivalent in other currencies) 78-7OOOS-January 1980-2,200