S/PV.2214 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken at previous meetings [2212th and 2213th meetings], I invite the representative of Lebanon to take a place at the Council table, and I invite the representatives of Israel, Jordan and the Netherlands and the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. 6. Perhaps, Mr. President, under your guidance and stewardship, a formula can develop that would render the resolutions of the Council, as they pertain to the south of Lebanon, fully capable of implementation, and allow the mandate given to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to be interpreted in such a manner as to deter Israel from the continued pursuit of its aggression and violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Tue’ni Webanon) took a place at the Council table and Mr. Blllm (Israel), Mr. Nuseibeh (Jordan), and Mr. van Baaren (Netherlands) and Mr. Terzi (Palestine Liberation Organization) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

I wish to inform the members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Ireland and Italy in which they request to be invited to Participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr, Mulloy (Ireland) and Mr. La Rocca (Italy) took the places reserved for them ut the side of the Council chamber.

The first speaker is Mr. Clovis Maksoud, Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations, to whom the Council has extended an invitation [2213th meeting] under rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 4. Mr. MAKSOUD: The question before the Council today is clear. Until when can the United Nations allow Israel to flout its resolutions, defy the international consensus and treat its functions, activities and institutions with contempt? Until when can Israel literally get away with murder? Until when can Israel pose as if it is insulated from the world community and behave as if it is immune from its sanctions and from the impact of its inevitable condemnation? 8. The immediate problem before the Council has been created by Israel’s entry into Lebanese territory. This is the latest manifestation of Israel’s ongoing aggression against the south of Lebanon. That the United States, because of its special relationship with Israel, has been able to “persuade” Isarel to withdraw its troops from Lebanon is a very marginal aspect of the crisis. The United States, it must be admitted, has done that frequently and repeatedly. Yet, this has been the pattern: Israel dispatches its armed forces into south Lebanon frequently and repeatedly; the United States, in order to minimize dangers to its over-all policy in the Middle East, “asks Israel to pull back its troops”, and this goes on. What does that mean? It means that Israel arrogates to itself the right and the freedom to transgress Lebanon’s borders at will and on any pretext. Consequently, the ability of Israel to undertake acts of military aggression against Lebanon-in the south of Lebanon-is unchecked and the deterrent that would disable Israel is rendered inoperative. For that reason, the Council has found itself, since March 1978 when its resolution 425 (1978) was adopted unanimously, lacking the adequate capability to ensure the full implementation of that resolution pertaining to the south of Lebanon. 9. Why? The reasons are clear and the problem this poses has to be dealt with by the Council head on. It can no longer be dealt with hesitantly, shyly and apologetically. The Council must signal that it not only sticks to its resolutions pertaining to the south of Lebanon but that those resolutions must be fully complied with in so far as their execution is concerned. Anything short of full implementation of resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) in all their parts and within a time-frame that the Council will spell out now would be construed by Israel, as usual, or as always, as licence for it to pursue its objectives by undermining the authority of UNIFIL and preventing tlie full implementation of the aforementioned resolutions. 10. The report of tbe Secretary-General [S//38881 clearly shows that UNIFIL is gradually being disabled 11. In other words, these forces which have been attacking UNIFIL in the last few days are forces of the Israeli strike force; they are used as a cover under which Israel cynically defies the international will. In its use of them Israel crudely underestimates the intelligence and the perception of the international community and the Security Council. The other attribute that is usually affixed to these mutineer elements is that of “Christian militias”. That the usurpation of the word “Christian” should be so frequently made in this case implies a travesty of the Christians of Lebanon, of their national and patriotic commitments and of their identification with the legitimate central authority of Lebanon. 12. Parenthetically, Israel’s claim to be a “prolector” of Christians in south Lebanon is not worthy of comment. But it would have had a semblance of a chance to acquire temporary credence at least, if the Christian citizens of northern Israel had been allowed to return to their homes in Ikrit and Kafr Bar’am during the last 25 years since they were forcibly evicted from their homes. So, before claiming “protection” of Christians in south Lebanon, let Israel protect its own Christian citizens in the north of Israel and Galilee. 13. We are dealing with a situation in the south of Lebanon that, if allowed to continue, will constitute a very serious and imminent threat to peace not only in the south of Lebanon but also in the region as a whole. That is so obviQ,us and clear that it does not warrant any further elaboration. 14. However, the contribution of the League of Arab States to the Council’s deliberations requires that we seek to shed some light on the nature of the limited and long-range objectives of Israel in Lebanon, in order to explain the causal factors that lie at the roots tion of economic, political and military sanctions. Hence, after Israel had occupied the south of Leb- 18. Secondly, Israel seeks to perpetuate the crisis in anon, it complied nominally with the injunction the south of Lebanon as one of its regional bargaining pertaining to withdrawal, while cynically replacing its cards. In this respect, Israel realizes that the United ! forces, or most of them, by its proxies. By doing States, in view of its special relationship with Israel, so, Israel sought to maintain its military control in can exercise credible leverage on it on any particular the south of Lebanon while creating conditions that issue at any particular time. Because of the so-called prevented further implementation of the afore- Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Israel has concluded that mentioned Council resolutions. Israel has for many the United States wants to show some “results” on the years sought to discredit the United Nations in order West Bank-Gaza issue. Therefore, the thrust of United to forestall its own growing isolation in the world and States potential for pressure has to be diverted and render United Nations resolutions inoperative so as to diffused and can be if another issue on another front destabilize the various peace-keeping forces and remains open. Let me explain. The United States, mechanisms of the United Nations in the Middle East. Israel believes, must be able to hand President Sadat In its attempt to discredit UNIFIL and to undermine some “progress” on the so-called autonomy negotiaits operations and functions Israel gives the task, as tions. This is due to the fact that if no “progress” the report of the Secretary-General amply shows, to is made and no tangible results emerge, then President the renegade forces in order to contrive an impression Sadat’s stature within the Arab world will be further I that the challenge to Lebanon’s central authority is damaged and rhis, in the United States view, would ~ an “internal” political question rather than a confurther compound his problems within Egypt itself. tinuation of Israel’s violation of Council resolutions. That is how Israel reads the American position. Hence, in order to keep United States pressure 16. I should like at this point to reply very briefly to diffused, there must always be another issue on some of the allegations and statements made this another front. That is one of the basic reasons for morning by the representative of Israel [2213rh Israel’s continued aggression in the south of Lebanon. meeting]. First, he alleged that at the Arab Summit The Israeli Government believes that if the United Conference held in Tunis the Palestine Liberation States is faced with the two problematic issues at the Organization and President Sarkis had differed on the same time, then its potential for pressure will be diluted interpretation of the resolutions of the Summit, as and it will have to postpone using its leverage on reported by Reuters. I should like to state very Israel, if not remove that leverage altogether. That will categorically that President Sarkis is a signatory of help Israel to buy time to achieve its objectives both the resolutions of the Tunis Summit. Lebanon, the PLO in the West Bank-Gaza area and in the south of and all the Arab States are committed to the imple- Lebanon. mentation of those resolutions. The signature of the President of Lebanon is binding and provides a more 19. Thirdly, Israel seeks to achieve ‘in the south of credible description of his position than does a Reuters Lebanon final strategic military hegemony. The south report, cited by the Israeli representative. My second of Lebanon, in Israel’s view, must be cleared of any correction concerns the statement that the solution of military presence at the moment, whether Lebanese the problems of Lebanon can be handled by the or United Nations. In this repect, I should like to removal of “alien forces”. Let me state that what welcome the announcement made this morning are called “Syrian forces” in Lebanon are Syrian units [ibiri.] by Mr. Tukni, the representative of Lebanon, under the umbrella of an Arab League force, called that the Lebanese Army has decided to participate, the Arab Deterrent Force. They are there by virtue of within the operational framework of UNIFIL, in the a resolution of the Arab League and at the invitation implementation of the role of UNIFIL under its of the Government of Lebanon, to remain until their mandate. It is hoped that the necessary interpretation functions are deemed terminated by their own will be given to the mandate of UNIFIL that will Commander-in-Chief, who happens to be the Presiprovide it with deterrent capacity and the ability to dent of Lebanon. Until then they are to be considered implement the tasks entrusted to it. part of Lebanon’s legitimacy. Any attempt to distort these facts is an attempt to distort the reality of 20. Israe] has sought to extend its military hegemony Lebanon. up to the Litani River and that extension, Israel thinks. 21. Fourthly, in that respect, Israel has another objective in the south of Lebanon, namely, preparing the ground for gaining control over the waters of the Litani River under the pretence of “sharing the waters”, as it is doing in the West Bank today. It is evident from the report of the Secretary-General that the south of Lebanon is viewed by Israel as a variation on the West Bank. It is true that Israel’s challenge to Lebanese sovereignty over the south is not so glaring, but it is quite clear. 22. Fifthly, by challenging Lebanon’s central authority and preventing it from deploying its forces in the south, Israel seeks to keep Lebanon in a state of what I should call “manageable turmoil” so that Israel itself may become a determining political facto] in an Arab State. I use the term “manageable” deliberately, because an unmanageable turmoil in Lebanon would be too exacting and perhaps too costly for Israel. On the other hand, it is Israel’s perception that turmoil must continue so that Israel may share in the management. With that view in mind, Israel seeks to cut off the south of Lebanon from Lebanon itself, to all intents and purposes, in order to expand the area of vulnerability so that Israel can, at a later stage, determine most of the developments in the region. Israel will then be recognized not only as a State but as a Power in the area and then its “right to exist” will become coterminous or synonymous with the right to dominate. 23. Sixthly, if Israel succeeds in perpetuating the haemorrhage in southern Lebanon, it then anticipates the failure of the pluralist experiment in Lebanon. Israel is planting the seeds of disintegration throughout the country. Since Zionism was the driving force in building the usurping racist entity and State of Israel, zionizing the region by bringing about its disintegration is intended to impoverish the national will and to weaken the propensity in the Arab world to build modern and viable States. In other words, Israel seeks to impugn Arab national existence through Lebanon’s continued turmoil and disintegration. 2.5. It is those objectives that render the crisis in the south of Lebanon much more far-reaching and much more ominous. That is why the incidents mentioned in the Secretary-General’s report cannot be dealt with in isolation from the overall context of Israel’s strategic, territorial, demographic and ideological objectives in Lebanon. That is why the League of Arab States and all the Arab States are committed to seeing to it that resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) are fully implemented or that this Council addressed itself to the causes and reasons for their not so far having been fully implemented. If the reasons for their defective implementation show that a redefinition of the mandate of UNIFIL is required, then let there be a redefinition. If a new resolution is required that will provide the mandate of the Council with additional teeth to enable it fully to implement its will, then let there be a new resolution. 26. In the mean time, let not the fact that Israeli troops entered and withdrew, whether partially Or fully, be an excuse for distracting the Council’s atteation from the urgent need to evolve a credible deterrent to Israel and its proxies, so that Israel will realize that its transgressions are costly, that its pampered arrogance is no longer tolerated and that the exceP tional treatment it seeks is at an end. 27. That Lebanon should reinforce its national unity, exercise full authority over all its territories and recover its creative role after five years of tragedy are not only a Lebanese necessity, a Palestinian necessity, an Arab necessity and an international necessity but also a human necessity. Lebanon’s resilience will trigger a speedy recovery in direct proportion to the credible implementation of the Council’s will and resolutions,

The last person to be speaking about terrorism and children is the representative of the Zionist entity, whose terrorist arsenal, from the air, by sea and on land, has killed and maimed literally tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian refugees, including thousands of children. Of course, they do not appear on the television screens, but still they have been killed and maimed, 34. And what is it that prompted those Israeli commanders to commit their outrageous attacks against Lebanon and the emissaries of the United Nations -our emissaries? They claim that UNIFIL and UNTSO had failed to detect the raiders of an Israeli colony, Misgav Am. But if the Israeli aggressors had had any sense of restraint, any sense of proportion, or respect for the United Nations, they would have easily recognized that the mission of both UNIFIL and UNTSO is not to police internal security within Israel, for if that were their mandate, then Israel should allow them to be stationed across the Armistice Line within Israel, to operate as a fourth or fifth electronic fence against any incursions. And we all recall that UNIFIL was prevented from taking over the whole strip of territory along the border between Lebanon and Israel, and that the Israelis handed over that territory to their agent, who commands what are known as the defucto forces. Now, if the pervasive and extensive security apparatus of the Israelis failed to detect an incursion, under what formuIa or by what mathematical computation does one expect a token force to perform in a fool-proof manner, when the armed camp-which is Israel-failed to protect itself? 30. NOW, those people, who should never have been in refugee exile in Lebanon but on their ancestral soil in Palestine-an exile of three decades, or is it 32 years?-are the victims of almost daily shelling and aerial and sea bombardment, in addition to territorial incursions by Israeli troops or Israel’s notorious henchman and surrogate, who has gone to the extent, of proposing that Lebanon’s boundaries be moved up to the Litani River when he suggested the other day that the permanent Armistice Agreement personnel operate near the Litani, and not on Lebanon’s international borders. 31. The Israel army’s reprehensible and aggressive action against Lebanon during the past week has very ominous overtones indeed, for more than one reason. 32. For one thing, it is a flagrant violation, with a total lack of concern, of the inviolability and territorial integrity of a sovereign independent Member State. This undercuts the principal tenet of the Charter. Whether the invading force was a battalion or a division is a peripheral consideration which does not mitigate or diminish the essential fact of aggression and invasion. Such acts of aggression must not be allowed to pass without the most serious repercussions and punishment, if the integrity of the world organization is to be preserved. If lawless and aggressive Israel can commit such aggression with impunity, then you can only expect repeat operations at the whim and will of reckless Zionist military commanders, who have hardly disguised their scorn for the United Nations and its affiliates and for everything it stands for. The price, of course, is paid by hundreds of thousands of constantly roaming Lebanese citizens and Palestinian refugees, and in the ruins of ancient and historic towns and villages like Sur, Sidon and countless others. They are there for all to see. 35. Indeed, having seen UNTSO officers at work in the mid-1950s and before the 1967 Israeli aggression, I can testify not only to their objectivity and dedication but also to their highest proficiency. They know a footprint or the type of sole from a shoe if they find one. I understand-although I would welcome correction if my information is incomplete--that the UNTSO personnel, who have three decades of honourable tradition behind them, were unable to detect any traces of footprints or severed electronic wires. This clearly suggests that the raid on the Israeli settlement could have been carried out by resistance personnel from within, and not by incursion from without. This perhaps also explains the shameful manner in which UNTSO personnel-unarmed officers and men-were roughed up, taken captive and immobilized. The Israelis evidently did not wish those impeccable officers to seek the facts and report them, as they have always done during the past three decades, to United Nations Headquarters and the Security Council. Not only were those valiant officers taken captive: their observation posts were simultaneously wrecked, their immobility assured. 33. Moreover, there are the audacious shelling of UNIFIL’S headquarters at Naqoura, the shameless imprisonment and ill-treatment of the personnel of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO), and the injuries which that shelling inflicted upon the United Nations Personnel and equipment, equipment which must be upgraded to enable them to defend themselves, at least. Those lightly-armed and valiant officers and men, rePre- 36, The representative of the Zionist entity in Pal- . . . . . _ estine has shed crocodile tears over the child whose 37. In similar situations which have occurred in many parts of the world, security forces do not act with reckless haste but resort to arms after exhausting all other peaceful options-or at least some of them. This is not because the security forces of those countries lack the overwhelming fire-power to overcome resistance; it is because all those countries have a healthy and laudable respect for the lives and dignity of innocent human beings who are inadvertently caught up in situations beyond their control. But in their reckless arrogance and irresponsibility, the Israeli troops, forgoing responsible restraint for bravado, could not care less who gets killed, and the quicker the better, even if it assuredly involves some of their citizens, even the children. Everybody knows that the five youths who lost their lives were on a oneway journey of no return, so why imperil the children’s lives by reckless and precipitate military action? 38. It is the duty of the Council to take effective measures to ensure that no aggressor shall be permitted to go berserk. The Council must ensure the total withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese soil promptly and unconditionally in accordance with its own resolutions. The Israelis are playing cat-andmouse with all of us, and the Secretary-General informed us this morning [2213rh /nrefing] that he could not verify that all the Israeli forces had withdrawn from Lebanese soil, Likewise, it is incumbent upon the Council to safeguard at least the honour and safety of United Nations emissaries, if not the aggrieved victims of prolonged Israeli occupation, oppression and brutality. We have all seen, but were hardly surprised by, the Israeli armed vandals attacking, killing, maiming and breaking the bones of innocent Palestinian students and children in the occupied territories in various colleges and schools, even though they had had nothing to do with what happened in the Israeli colony. 39. But what could we expect from an entity that, with American financing, technical know-how and sale of the most sophisticated engines and equipment -10 days ago, one of the prime General Electric engines used for jets was sold to the Israelis-has become a merchant of death and one of the top exporters of arms, as we saw with our own eyes on the CBS television programme “60 Minutes” yesterday? 41. I take this opportunity to express our deep gratitude and appreciation to the Secretary-General for his persistent and unceasing efforts over the past week in confronting the perils that Israel’s aggression had posed to the inviolability of Lebanese territory, as well as to both UNIFIL and UNTSO, whose men are risking their lives in the line of duty in a valiant and thankless task. We pay our deepest condolences to the families of those valiant United Nations officers and men who gallantly gave up their lives, and we wish a speedy recovery to those who were wounded. 42. The fundamental and unalterable fact is that the Palestinian refugees should not have to be in Lebanon in the first place; they should not have to cut through electrified fences in order to reach their land and homes in Galilee, a land that is their birthright, as mandated by the General Assembly in resolution 194 (III) and reconfirmed each year. The usurpers of their lands are the undoubted culprits.

The Security Council has convened this emergency meeting to consider the new acts of naked aggression on the part of Israel against the sovereign State of Lebanon. 44. On 8 April, regular units of the Israeli army, with the support of both tanks and aircraft, once again violated the national boundary of Lebanon and carried out a mass incursion into Lebanese territory. In this way, Israel has once again grossly violated the generally recognized norms of international law and overtly violated the numerous resolutions of the Council whose purpose was to preserve Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity from Israeli encroachments. 45. Israel’s aggressions have not concealed its intention to establish control over the Lebanese territory by cynically arrogating to themselves the right to carry out patrols in southern Lebanon, to carry out engineering works there and so forth. What we are really talking about is the fact that Israel, while rendering intensive military and material support to its agents in Lebanon, namely the anti-Government forces of Haddad, is also continuing its efforts directly to assert its military presence in the southern part of Lebanon and openly to occupy part of Lebanese territory. 46. Recently the world witnessed the continued escalation of aggressive action on the part of the Israeli military and its right-wing Christian henchmen against 50. This defiant and cynical policy on the part of the Israeli leadership could not have been pursued had they not enjoyed virtually unlimited support from their Powerful Protectors. It is no secret to anyone that the United States not only gives Israel the broadest possible and the most generous financial and economic assistance, not only provides it with the most sophisticated forms of weaponry, including offensive weapons, but also prevents the Security Council from taking any resolutions that would condemn the Israeli armed provocations and provide for the adoption of effective measures to put an end to them. 47. With the help of Haddad’s units, Israel has made it impossible for United Nations troops to establish control over the Lebanese areas that border Israel. Armed provocation against United Nations forces in southern Lebanon has caused casualties among the military personnel. According to information provided by the Secretary-General, the headquarters of the United Nations forces has been destroyed; and the information available about the departure of the Israeli forces essentially does not change the situation. The dangerous situation that has arisen as a result of Israeli provocations remains. 51. War and peace in the Middle East are closely tied up with the interests of many States and peoples in that area. Therefore, a comprehensive and just settlement of the Middle East problem is feasible only provided that due account is taken of the legitimate rights of all the parties concerned, including, of course, the Arab people of Palestine. And for that there is only one genuine basis, which derives from the relevant decisions adopted by the United Nations: Israel’s restoration to the Arabs of all the territories that it seized in 1967, the granting to the Palestinian Arabs of the right to self-determination and to create their own State, and the assurance that all States in the area will enjoy an independent and secure existence. 48. The aggressive and provocative actions of Israel committed against Lebanon and the United Nations troops that are located in Lebanon’s southern region are part and parcel of the expansionist policy pursued by the ruling circles of Israel for which military adventures against neighbouring Arab States have long been used as a means for realizing far-reaching plans for annexation. It is also quite obvious that by stepping up military tension, Israel is endeavouring to distract the attention of international public opinion from the ongoing negotiations regarding the so-called administrative autonomy for the Palestinians, the purpose of which, as has been clearly demonstrated during the current discussion in the Council of the question of the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, is to facilitate Israel’s consolidation of its annexation of the Arab lands that were occupied in 1967. 52. As has been shown by the entire course of events in the Middle East over the last year, any attempts to solve the Middle East problem on the basis of separate deals will not bring the Middle East any peace or stability. On the contrary, such deals will simply serve to increase tension in that area, they will further increase Israel’s aggressiveness, and they will encourage its designs of usurpation in the neighbouring Arab States. 53. Once again I should like to draw the attention of the members of the Council to the fact that we have very frequently encountered facts attesting to the gross and cynical violation by Israel of both the spirit and the letter of the Charter. Israel has trampled underfoot the resolutions of the Council, which have been designed to bring about a normalization of the situation in southern Lebanon. And once again we are forced to ask: how long does the Security Council intend to acquiesce in such conduct by a Member State? After all, the Council has available to it all the necessary facilities to bring the usurpers of Tel Aviv to heel. How long, one wonders, will the representatives of the United States systematically support Israel in the Council, thus undermining the prestige and effectiveness of the United Nations? 49. Today no one can any longer harbour any doubt that the conclusion of the Camp David accords in September 1978 and the signing in March 1979 of a separate Egyptian-Israeli treaty have given free rein to Israel to pursue its increasingly implacable, defiant, aggressive and expansionist policy against Lebanon and the Palestinian refugees located in that territory. This is precisely the reason for the daily increasing number of armed provocations carried out by Israel and the separatist Haddad’s units under its control against Lebanon, against Palestinian camps and against UNIFIL in southern Lebanon. Today Haddad and his

The next speaker is the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

At the outset I should like to make it very clear that the Palestinian presence in Lebanon is not the choice of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are in Lebanon as a result of an onslaught, a holocaust, an attempt at genocide by the Zionist armed gangs which have driven the Palestinians out of their homes by force. The Palestinians are in Lebanon in transit until they return to their homes. It should be made very clear that the Palestinian, wherever he is, has the inalienable right to return to his home, that is, Palestine. So there are no Palestinian “infiltrators”, there are no Palestinian “terrorists”; there are Palestinians who are exercising their inalienable right to return to their homes. Sometimes violence ensues in that exercise, but in principle it is a right that they are exercising, the right to return to their homes. The Palestinians have no intention whatsoever of taking any other country to replace their own, and they have no plan to usurp the land of others and declare it their own State. 57. On 14 December 1979, the Secretary-General presented a report to the Council in which he stated: “As I mentioned in my last report, an essential factor in the success of UNIFIL in the implementation of its mandate is the position of the Israeli Government, inasmuch as the de fuctcj forces are supported by Israel.” [S/13691, para. XI.] And later in the same document, the Secretary-General stated: “It is my earnest hope that, given the clear will of the Council, and in the interests of peace, all parties concerned will increasingly extend to UNIFIL the co-operation that it requires.” [bid., para. 61.1 58. That report was adopted and accepted by a resolution of the Council [resolution 459 (1979)] but what was the result? The result was obstruction and violent harassment, not only by the so-called de fixto forces which have sought to prevent the re-manning by UNTSO observers of long-established United 59. In the report presented by the Secretary-General on 11 April we read: “On 24 March, IDF personnel at border pilIar 33 fired about 40 rounds of light machine-gun and small arms over the heads of the observers when they appeared on the roof of OP Mar.” [S/33888, para. 8.1 I am sure that it has not escaped the members of the Council that this constituted obstruction-the use of arms against the United Nations in the exercise of its mandate to establish observation posts across the frontiers. 60. From that report and from the Secretary- General’s reports of yesterday and this morning, we also learn about the acts of the de facto forces. I really see no difference between def~cro forces and the IDF, for, as the Secretary-General has said, the de &to forces are mainly supported by Israel. So there is one source-Israel-for the de facto forces and the IDF. All these forces, which constitute just one force, are there to obstruct the work of the Security Council and of the United Nations. I see no need to state that since March-as a matter of fact since the beginning of 1980-these obstructions have been laid in the way of implementing Council resolutions. 61. The real issue is the re-manning of the two UNTSO observation posts established along the armistice demarcation lines between Israel and Lebanon on the basis of the General Armistice Agreement of 1949. Well, we all know that these lines are the internationally recognized borders between Palestine and Lebanon and I am not aware of any change in those lines since then, 62. The Israeli plan is very clear. It is to create serious incidents designed-and designed long before 7 April, the date repeatedly mentioned in the course of this discussion-to obstruct the work and also designed for something more serious than that, Two years ago, when the Council was discussing the Israeli invasion of south Lebanon, I had the opportunity ]2071st ineeting] to mention the Zionist plan and designs on south Lebanon as presented in 1919 by the Zionist Organization. That plan was to include all of south Lebanon-from the vicinity of Sidon and following the watershed of the foothills of Lebanon as far as Karaon and thence to El-Bireh-in the Jewish homeland promised by Balfour. But some friends of mine said, “Zehdi, this is going too far back in history: things change”, 63. Well, things do not change. Moshe Sharrett -ex-Moshe Shertok-was the Prime Minister of “We must concentrate all our efforts on this issue. This is a historic opportunity; missing it will be unpardonable. There is no challenge against the world Powers in this; everything should be done, in my opinion, rapidly and at full steam.” “Upon my withdrawal from the Government I decided in my heart to desist from intervening and from expressing any opinion on current political affairs so as not to make things in any way, or under any aspect, difficult for the Government. And if you had not called on me-the three of you: yourself, Lavon and Dalan-I would not have, of my own accord, expressed an opinion on what is being done or what ought to be done. But as you called on me, I deem it my duty to comply with your wishes and, especially, with your own wish as Prime Minister. Therefore, I permit myself to go back to the issue on which we disagreed and to insist on it: that is, the issue of Lebanon. 64. This is the letter of Ben-Gurion dated 27 February 1954 and addressed to the Prime Minister. It shows exactly what the aims of the Zionists are in Lebanon. 65. But Mr. Sharrett notes on 16 May 1954 the following: “In a joint meeting of senior officials of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Ministries, Ben-Gurion again raises the demand that Israel ‘do something about Lebanon’. According to Dayan, the only thing that is necessary is to find an officer, be he just a major;” -call him Haddad if you want-” we should either conquer his heart or buy him with money to make him agree to declare himself the saviour of the Maronite population. Then the Israeli army will enter Lebanon, will occupy the necessary territory and will create a Christian rkgime which will ally itself with Israel.” “It is clear that Lebanon is the weakest link in the Arab League. The other minorities in the Arab States are all Moslem, except for the Copts. But Egypt is the most compact and solid of the Arab States and the majority there consists of one solid bloc of one race, religion and language, and the Christian minority does not seriously affect their political and national unity. Not so the Christians in Lebanon. They are a majority in the historical Lebanon, and this majority has a tradition and a culture different from those of the other components of the League. And now he comes to the point: “The territory from the Litani southward will be torally annexed to Israel”. These are the aims ofthe Zionists in invading Lebanon, pretext or no pretext. Again. on 28 May 1954, Sharrett notes: “The Chief of Staff continues to insist that we should hire a Lebanese officer who will accept to serve as a puppet so that the Israeli Army may ‘respond’ to his appeal to ‘liberate Lebanon from its Moslem oppressors’.” “Also, within the wider borders-this was the worst mistake made by France, which amplified the frontiers of Lebanon-the Moslems are not free to do as they wish, even if they are a majority there, and I do not know if they are indeed a majority, for fear of the Christians. The creation of a Christian State is, therefore, a natural need. It has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant. 66. I do not want to take the lime of the Council by reading out the entire memoirs of Sharrett and the aims of the Zionist movement and its plans for annexing southern Lebanon. What the Council is considering here is an attack by Israel--call it the defcrcrcl forces, or call it the IDF-on the United Nations. What is the Council really going to do about it’? Should it sit with its arms folded? A medical centre has been blown up: there has been an attempt to destroy the peace effort; helicopters have also been blown UP, I understand. “Normally, this would be almost impossible, first and foremost because of the lack of initiative and courage of the Christians”-these are the words of Ben-Gurion-“But at times of Confusion Or revolution or civil war things take on another aspect, and even the weak declares himself to be a hero, Perhaps now is the time to bring about the creation of a Christian State in our neighbourhood. 67. Some reference has been made to an incident at a kibbutz. NOW, since January we have been sending a number of letters to the Secretary-General drawing his attention to the attacks, almost daily attacks, on “Without our initiative and our vigorous aid, this will not be done. It seems to me that this is the central duty-or at least one of the central duties- 68. What I am trying to bring to the attention of the Council is this: we do not have those sophisticated weapons, those means of destruction; we do not have aircraft; we do not have 175mm artillery. So, does the possession of those means of destruction mean that the world should remain silent regarding the crimes committed every day by the Zionists against our people? We never saw those things in the media; we never read about them in the press. 69. We are concerned about the way the United Nations has been treated, about the way that UNIFIL has been treated. We wish to convey, through you, Mr. President, our condolences, not only to the Litho in United Nations. New York otl300 83761462~-Au~~ust 1986-2.425 70. In our opinion, the Council should speak out in the strongest possible terms, not only to condemn, but also to impose sanctions. The Charter speaks of sanctions against those who violate it. What more violation do you want than an attack with heavy artillery, destroying UNIFIL aircraft, destroying United Nations medical teams? This is what we hope that the Council will do: that it will condemn specifically and clearly Israeli violations of the General Armistice Agreement and of the territorial integrity of Lebanon, 71. We trust that, very soon, the Council will be able ‘to tell us that the Israeli forces of invasion have definitely departed from Lebanese territory, that their henchmen are no longer there, that UNIFIL is stationed on the internationally recognized borders of Lebanon and that one step towards peace has been scored in favour of the Council; and perhaps later on the Palestinians can go back to their homes and use the highways instead of having to take the mountain paths.