S/PV.541 Security Council

l have convened this meeting of the Security Council, uncler rule 3 of the provisional mies of procedure, in pursuance of a formaI request received on 6 April from the Chairman of the Syrian delegation ta the United Nations. In that communication, the Syrian delegation requested that a complaint set forth in previous communications should be placed on the agenda of the Security CouncÎl, with a view ta examining it at an early meeting of the Council. The text of this request was circulated in document 5/2075. 2. Later, a request was received in a telegram clated 7 April 1951 from the representative of Israel to place a number of camplaints on the Security Couucil's agenda for urgent discussion. The text of this request was circulated in document S/2077. 3. Sl1hsequently, in a letter dated 9 April 1951, addressed to the President of the Security Council by the Chairman of the Syrian delegation ta the Unitee! Nations, the items submitted by the Syrian delegation for ,insertion in the Security Council's agenda were speCified. The text of this communication was cÎrculated as document S/2078, 4. The provisional agenda now before the Council was drawn ~lP on the hasis of these requests, in accordance wlth rule 7 of the provisional rules of procedure. The variotls complaints were listecl as formulated, by the parties and were placed uncler the general h"admg "~:he Palest!l;e question" which has figured on the ~ecunty Counell s agenda since December 1947. Sub-Items (a) to ,(e) 1 incl.usive, represent complaints formulated by S~7na. Sub-Items Cf) to (h), inclusive, repr('~ent complatnts forl11ulated by Israel. As was the case lt1 October 1950, when the COlmci! had before it under the g-eneral.headinr,; :'The Palestine question", ~ nl1111ber of comp~amts sllbm1tted by various parties, and as the.then Pr.esldent. of the ~ouncil ~tatecl at the time, there IS ~1? jmma faCle value 111 any Item appearing on ~he p.rovlslOnal agenda. The items are intended only to Iclentlfy the subject matter. S The PRESIDENT: In addition to the documents s~tbmitted by the parties in connexion with ,the CJ.uestion uoder discussion, the members of the Counctl have received the report of the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization on the status of the oper- ations of the Mixed Armistice Commission (5/2049) and the relevant interim reports from the Acting Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization con- tained in documents S/2067, S/2084 and S/2088. l may perhaps ulso draw the attention of the Council to two Press reports received from the public information officer with the United Nations Palestine Conciliation Commission at Jerusalem datecl 12 April ancl 16 April, according to which both Syria and Israel are reported to have accepted a number of points submitted by the Acting Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Orgall- ization' those were submitted to both parties as a pre- requisite to resul11ption of normal activities of the Israel- Syrian Mixed Armistice COl11mission. 6. Faris EL-KHOURI Bey (Syria): Before dis- Cltssing the question itself and going to the heart of the matter, l wish to caH attention to sub-item 2 (1) of today's agenda, as fol1ows: "(f) Comp1aint of Syrian violation of the General Armistice Agreement hetween Israel and Syria 1 by persistent firing on civilian workers in the demili- tarized zone in Israel territory near Banat Yakub on 15 March 1951 and between 25 and 28 March 1951 (S/2077)". The statement made here that the c1emititarized zone is in Israel territory is incorrect and untrue. For this reason l should like to caH the attention of the Securitv Council to the point that we never agreed that th'e demilitarized zone was in Israel territory. AU the de- militarized zones along the tine between the two States ~ere taken from Syrian occupation. Before this armis- tice, where the demilitarizec1 zone now exists, the terri- tory was ail under the occupation of the Syrian Army. The Syrian army withdrew from this tract of land only ln order to supply the place for the demilitarized zone. Fo: this reason the Syrian Government has always claUlled the part where the demilitarized zone now exists to ~e Syrian territory because this territory was ttnder Syna11 occupation up until the timc the Armistice Agreement came into force. ?- According to the Armistice Agreement, the occupy- mg forces were to withdraw from the demilitarized zone. .The Syrian Army complied with this prOVIsion and wlthdrew in obedience to article V of the Armistice Agreement. d'occupation L'armée s'est l'article 10. Faris EL-KHüURI Bey. (Syria): l beg to make ft sllmmary 'Of the events relatmg to the .recent Israel- 'S' - • l' te as esta1Jlished in the offiCial documents ,ynan (ISPU .' and reports issued by the comp~tent :epresentatrve organs of the United Nations, wlth bnef comments thereon. 11. Early in February 1951, and in violation of the Israel-Syrian General Armistice Agreement of 20 Jnly 1949, the Israel Government began work along ~he western bank of the Jordan River and on land bel?nglll~ to Arab peasants in the Mansoura ~ector, sltua~ed within the clemilitarized zone. At the bm~ the SYl'l~n delegation protested to ~he Mixed Armistice CommIs- sion against this violatlOn by Israel of the General Armistice Agreement [5/2049, sec. IV, para. 2], ?ut the Israel Government ignored the Syrian complamt. Notwithstanding the repeated warni~1g? of the ~h~ir­ man of the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armlstlce Conlll11sslOn, Israelis not of demilitarized zone origin crossed the bridge of Banat Yakub on 13 March 1951 and began work on a larger scale in the demilitarized zone of the eastern bank of the Jordan River. Naturally, this force- fui action conld not pass unnoticed by the local Arab landowners, who had refused to seU their land ta the Israel Government, to the Palestine Land Development Company. They put np a heroic resistance. On 15 March Israel reinforcements, armed with antomatic weapons, Bren gUl1S and mortars, were hurried to the Huleh demilitarized zone, with a view to forcing the local Arab inhabitants to cease resistance and to seU thcir lands to the Palestine Land Development Company. 12. At this criticalmoment the Chairman of the Israel- Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission decided ta in- tervcne to pnt an end to the arbitral'Y and high-handed acts of the Israel anthorities. He thus requested the withclrawal of the Israel reinforcements and the stoppage of the work undertaken by the Palestine Land Development Company on the eastern bank of the Jordan River. Notwithstanding this request the Israelis resllnll'cl that drainage work on a large scale on both banks ?f the Jordan River. T~1is caused the Syrian delegatlOll to fIle a new oomplal11t on 20 Marcll 1951 [S/2067, jmm. 24] against this new Israel violation of article IV, paragraph 3 of the General Anl1istice Agree- ment between Syria and Israel, which reads: "Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the parties, which prahibit c1vilians from crossing the pris .Commission cord propriétaires violation 13. Indeed, the drainage works had been undertaken without the prior approval of the Chairman of the United Nations Armistice Commission, without the agreement of the Syrian Government and against the will of the Arab landowners. It is therefore an open violation of article V, paragraph 2, which stipulates: "In pursuance of the spirit of the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948, the armistice demar- cation line and the demilitarized zone have been defined with a view towards separating the armed forces of the two parties in such a manner as to minimize the possibility of friction and incident, while providing for the graduaI restoration 01 normal eivilian life in the area of the demilitarized zone, without prejudice to the ultil1late settlement". 14. Furthermore, the continuation of this project is c1estined to remave a national defence obstacle which has always existed and which actually separates the armed forces of Syria and Israel, thus giving Israel military advantages and changing the status quo in favour of Israel's expansionist designs, in contravention of article II, paragraph 1 of the General Armistice Agreement which states: "The principle that no military or political aclvantage should be gained t1l1der the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized". 15. On that same day, 20 March, the Chairman of the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Conunission sent the following letter to the Director of the Palestine Land Development Company [S/2067 para. 21] : "In accordance with the powers given to the Chairman under article V of the Israel-Syrian General Arn~istice Agreement and the agreement of both part!esat the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Com- mission meeting of 19 March, 1 have begun my inves- tigation and l request the Palestine Land Develop- ment Company ta cease work within the demilitarizee! zone until such time as 1 have completee! my tasks". 16. But ~ve days later the Chairlnan reported that the Paiestllle Land Development Company resumed its work. Acco.rdingly, he again requested the senior Israel representattve to take il11mediate steps to cease such works. In answer to this the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission received the following reply [S/206~ para.27]: "This matter is to be settled between the Chairman and the Palestine Land Deve10pment Company and the. landowners, according to the agreement by wh!ch bothde1egations should not concern themselves with this matter". "1 consider your attitude incorrec~ and not. befit.ting your position as senior representatlve ta thls Mlxed Armistice Commission, and l stress that the full responsibility for the breach of the An;list.ice Agr~e­ ment as weIl as for the eventual complicatIOns wluch couic! result, rests upon Israel ..." 18. In spite of this warning, however, the represen- tative of the Palestine Land Deve10pment Company refusec! ta heed the request on the grounds that "he had orders from the Israel authorities to proceed with the work". 19. On 25 March there was an exchange of fire near the Banat Yakub bridge where the Israelis attempted to resume their worle Therel1pon the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission and the United Nations observer reported that they were being defied by the Israel police officer in the area and by the representative of the Palestine Land Development Company. On the evening of 25 March, the Chairman of the United Nations Mixed Armistice Commission sent another letter to the representativc of the Palestine Land Development Company, in which he wrote [5/2067, para. 32]: "1 confirm the wording of my letter dated 20 Mareil 1951, and stress again that l requested therein that the Palestine Land Development Company stop work !n the. del.nilitariz~d zone unt!l l have completed my 1I1veshgatlOn. ~l11lateral actIOn taken with regard ta tllcse worles IS a breach of the General Armistice Agreement; l consider the resumption of the worle toc!ay as a unilateral action". 20. But ~his new warning was again disregarded by Israel, wluch on the next day brol1ght up two bulldozers ta the western banle 9f the Jordan River, and emplaced tW? mortars approxlmately 200 metres northwest of MIsl.lI.nar. Hay Yarden in the central sector of the clcm.lhtanzed zone. vVhen the Chairman of the United NatIOns Armistice Commission ordered the withc1rawal of these weapons, his orders were flagrant\y defied by r~rael police 9fficers as we~l as by the members of the Isr~el d~legatlOn to the Mixee! Armistice Commission. ]'llls aC~lOn p~0~11pted the Acting Chief of Staff of the fr,uce Supervui1o~ Organization to send the following message to the Chief of Staff of Israel [5/2067,pam.35] : "1 am informe(~ by th.e United Nations Chairman of the Israel~S~~tan lVIIxed Armistice Commission that Isra~l clvl1lans have emplaced two J.5 inch ~llortars 111 the central sector of the demilitarized zone, 200 metres northwest of Mishmar Hay Yardèn. "1 c91~sider these civilians ta constitute an Israel par.a-l1u1l.tary force within the demilitarized zone TJu~ action, having been confirmed by th U' d' Nt.. e mte . a Ions representabve, constitutes a flagrant . 1 _ tII~n lof the G~neral Armistice Agreeme11t be~~~l srae al1d Syna". 22. Commenting on this incident, the United Nations Acting Chief of Staff addressed a letter to the Israel Chief of Staff in which he stated [5/2067,para.44] : "1 consider the action of the Israel defence forces today to be a flagrant violation of articles l, III and V, of the General Armistice Agreement. "You are requested to order your forces to cease lire immediately and to withdraw outside the demili- tarized zone." 23. But the Israelis did not comply with the repeated requests made by the Chaimlan of the Mixed Armistice Commission. They continued firïng and occupying the demilitarized zone with armed forces. Exhilarated by the helplessness of the United Nations armistice organs, the Israel Government decided on 30 March to carry out by force the evacuation of the Arab inhabitants of the villages situated within the demilitarizec1 zone. This arbitrary and high-handed action, which has no precedent except in the annals of old days, constitutes another flagrant violation of the General Armistice Agreement. l have addressed a letter dated 2 April to the President of the Security Council [S/2065] in which l have protested, on behalf of the Syrian Gov- ernment, against the illegal evacuation of 980 Arabs from the village of Baqqara, whieh is situated on the western bank of the Jordan River within the demilitar- ized zone. This mass deportation of Arab inhabitants of Baqqara is indeed a sharp and wicked frustation of the exercise of normal civilian life in the demilitarized zone. 24. Let now turn to the legal argument that the Arab landowners in the demilitarized zone cannot object if due compensation is paid to them. l shall quote from the report of the Chief of Staff, Major G~neral Riley, on the status of the operations of the Mlxed Armistice Commission dttring the period 17 November to 17 February [5/2049, Sec. IV, para. 3] : "The demilitarized zone created by the Armistice Agreement was defined with a view toward separating the arl11ed forces of both parties while providing for the graduaI restoration of normal civilian life in the area of the del11ilitarizcd zone. The Chairman of. the Mixed Armistice Commission was charged with the "Until such time as a mutual agreement is reached betwcen the Governmel1ts of Syria and Israel, with respcct ta the \Vork now being concluded in the dCl1lilitarizcd zone in connexion with the drainage of the Lake Huleh marshes, the Palestine Land Deve10pment Company or any successors are, in the opinion of the Chief of Staff, not justifiecl in continu- ing such work. "In the opinion of the Chief of Staff, the Palestine Land Developll1ent Company Limited should be instructed forthwith to cease ail operations within the c1elllilitarized zone, until such time as a mutual agree- ment is arranged through the Chainnan between Syria and Israel for continl1ing this project." 25. In the light of this report, there is !l0 doubt that the dctermination of the Israel al1thorities to continue wnrk in the Huleh sector in the demilitarized zone and the mass deportation of the Arab inhabitants of this an~a constÎtute a flagrant violation of the General Armistice Agreement and an open contravention of international law and justice. The Chief of Staff affirmed his ruling in this letter that the landowners cannat b~ foreed to accept compensation. This rulîng renders mcorrect the suggestion of the Acting Chief of Staff that he may intervene and fix the land value in case of failure to reach an accord between the land- owners and the company, 26. On 4 April, two Israel mechanized patrols attacked t~le Arab polic~ station. establi~hed under the sl1pervi- s~on of the U11lted NatlOns Mlxed Armistice Commis- SIOI1 of the El Hamma sector in the demilitarized zone, a~r~ they then attacked the isolated nearby Syrian !lllhtary post. This attaclc, however, was repulsed. 27.. On 5 ~pril, five Israel Air Force planes flew over Synan te:ntory and bombecl three Syrian military posts ?utslde the del11ilitarized zone, and bombed and ~lel1.lOltshed three Arab villages, cuusing some casualties. ,nus ~vas al1 act of aggression against the territorial l1ltcgnty ,of Syria. No one can deny the hostile chara~­ tcr of thls act. Even the Israel Government was re- p~rtecl hy the New Y orh Tin~es of 6 April to have ad- l1utted that the bombing from the air of Syrian military 28. These facts and quotations which l have narrated are taken mostly from the first and second' of the three reports (5/2049, 5/2067, 5/2084] prepared and sub- mitted to the Security Council by the Chief of Staff and Acting Chief of Staff presiding over the Israel- Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission and chargee! with controlling and administering the demilitarized zone created by virtne of the General Armistice Agreement .of July 1949.' 29. These three interim reports cover the events per- taining to this conflict from February down to 10 April. A supplementary report covering the events of the two days following, 11 April and 12 April [5/2088], was distribnted here yesterday by the Secretariat. We shall come to that later. In these reports the 8.uthors gave a brief description of the events as presented ta them by the parties of by the observers working under them, re- gistering at the same time the complaints and protests lodged by the parties. When appropriate, they also added some comments or gave their own opinions on the events. 30. Vve have also to consider a number of letters addressed to the Presiclent of the Security COllncil by the Syrian and Israel delegations protesting against acts constitllting a violation of agreement attribntecl by each sicle to the other, ancl clrawing the attention of the Security Council to these allegations ancl calling for an carly meeting for the purpose of stllclying the problem and taking a decision upon it as stated in today's agenda. 31. l assume that representatives in the Security Council have already looked through these papers and reached certain conclusions thereon. l neecl not repeat here what l stated in the letters l presented previonsly ta the President of the Security Council, but although l know that the weight of argument before the Security Council lies in the reports issued by the representative of the Council and of the General Assembly, and not in the allegations of the two parties, l nevertheless con- sicler it necessary to make my claims c1ear, to add cer- tain comments and to draw certain conclusions based on the facts contained in the documents and statements which have been presented and from which l have quoted, or deduced from the events themselves. 32. A brief historical review of the case shows that, pursuant to the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 [5/1079], an Armistice Agreement w~s conc1uded between Syria and Israel. The text of t1us Agreement was issued as Security Council docu- ment S/1353/Rev.1, to which was attached a detailed map. l believe that each representative in the Council has these documents hefore him and can consult them. 33. The Agreement also established a 1!ixed Arn:is- tice Commission to supervise the executl~n of artIcle VII of the Agreement, and emp?wered Wlt~ adequate authority for its proper and full ImplementatIOn. 34. Since this Agreement came 1nto force. l11?re than twenty 1l10nths have passed without any ll1~ldent or disagreeable situation being createc1 by the Synans, who are always loyal to their engagements and. respectf~11 of the principles ~nd pll1'pose~ of the Umtec1 .Natl~ns. During that penod the Israelts usec1 to send thelr 'p0hce- men to the demilitarized zone, and on each occaSIOn the Syrian delegation 10dged pratests against such .violation. Tt was only in February last, when the Israelts open~d the door of evil, that clashes toole place and dls- turbances began which gave birth to this annoying problem before the Security Coltncil. 35. l have already explained that in February last the Palestine Land Development Company, under the au- thority of the Israel Government, started gigantic worles in the demilitarized zone. This move met serious opposi- tion from tluee presllmptive claimants and qualified elements, namely, landowners, the Syrian Government and the United Nations representatives. There are four elements concerned in this matter: Israel, Syria, the landowners and the United Nations representatives. Three of these rom elements opposed the enterprise undertaken by Israel. Israel alone advocated the legal- ity of its position. l shaH talee eadi of the three elements anc1 discuss them separately. 36. The Arab landowners in the demilitarized zone objected to and vigorously opposed the occupation of their fields and the spoiling of their crops. They obsti- nately refused to yield to the pressure exerted upon thelr: by the Israel police and anned civilians specially 1110bl~ized on a large scale to intimidate the peasants and, If necessary, to suppress their anxiety by violence. But the landowners remained adamantly opposed to this course of action. . 37.. The Israelis! finding that it was impossible to contlll11e the drall1age worle as 10110- as those Arab inh~bitants were there reac1y to prot:ct their land and thelr homes even with their blood, decided to deport them altogether and to send them elsewhere. They 38. It is ta he noted that the principal clashes and ex- changes of fire took place between the Arab landowners and ] ewish armed workmen and policemen, especial1y in connexion with the bulldozers brought in by Israel to restrain and coerce the peasants by intimidation or by violence if necessary. The pretence that Syrian military or para-military forces participated in the clashes is not founded. The Syrian Army is. ordered not ta use its weapons except in self-defence. 39. The deportation of Arab villagers cannot be based on any justifiable motive. Tt was carried out as a method of coercion against the Arab peasants with a view ta stealing their property and to frightening others by the example of what happened to them. No reason- able man can believe that the compulsory evacuation of people can be reconciled with the principle of re- sU11ling normal civilian life stipulated in the Armistice Agreement with regard to the demilitarized zone. 40. The second element which opposed the draining project was the Syrian Government. Let us see whether or not the Syrian Government has a right to interfere in this matter. 41. lt is admitted that the aet of draining swamps, talœn by itself and not in connexion with other con- tingencies, constitutes a beneficial social endeavour. The Syrian Government would not be considerecl as hostile ta such useful projects. We ourselves are undertaking enterprises of this nature within our territory. It shoulcl be understood, however, that the innocence of an enter- pri~e i~ not a sufiicient reason for depriving others of thelr nghts. In present circumstances, this enterprise ~oes not stand alone; there are other considerations mvolved which cannat be overlooked. 42. The project is ta be conducted in a c1emilitarized zone, in a territory not uncler Israel domination, a terri- t?ry administered under the provisions of an interna- tlOnal convention concluded by Syria and Israel tmder the auspices of the Security Counri!. A staff of observers was appointecl by the United Nations and t~le expltclt accord of the other signatory to the Armis- tice Agreement and the authorization of the United Nations representativcs snpel-vising the application of the Agreement and administering the demilitarized zone where the drainage operations were to be condncted at1(l before having obtained the free consent of th~ owners of the land. The consent of none of these three elements was obtainecl. 43. The Syrian Government opposes the drainage cnterprise for several reasons. 44. First, there is the military advantage which Israel will gain from the l-emoval of this natural barrier be- tween the two States dUrÎng the time of the armistice - l repeat: cluring the time of the armistice, when a state of war exists between the two States - andbefore the conclusion of a final peace. It is stipulated not only in this Armistice Agreement, but also in the armistice agreements relating to other States, that no political or military advantage should be allowed for any party dL1ring the armistice. It cannot be denied that the rcmoval of such a barrier of lakes anc1 swamps would afford a military advantage, opening the way to assault withollt obstacle. It has been saic1 that this ac1vantage will be accorded to both sic1es, that both will profit from it. It is also admitted, however, that the party which does not find it to its interest to profit from this ad- vantage cannat be obliged to accept it - especially when one of the parties is expansionist and wants ta move forwar-c1. Article II of the Armistice Agreement c10es llot specify merely that no military advantage should be gainec1 by either party: it specifies that 110 political or military ac1vantage ShOllld he allowed for either party. No distinction is drawn in the article. 4-5, The second reason for which Syria opposes the proj cct is the misfortune which it anticipates will befall the Arabs living in that area when thousanc1s of Jews are brought into and settled on the thousands of drained acres, artel' the Aral> lands have been expropriated or the Arabs have been put ta Hight by intimidation and violent treatlllent. In this case, thousands of new Arab refl1gecs will be added ta the already voluminolls ranks of refllgees overloading Syria and other Arab countries. 46. Our third reason is this: when the drained area has been equippecl \Vith military posts on the Israel side, Syria will be obliged to station sufficient new equilJl11ent on its front ta mcet the situation, and will thus he forcerl ta suffer adc1itional military charges and expencliLllreS c1uring the armistice period. 47. The fourth reason for which Syria cannot remain inc1ifferent to the project of Huleh drainage is that 48. gure 48. Our fifth reason is this: Syria is a signatory ta the General Armistice Agreement and cannot permit sa great an enter~rise ta. he ,,:orked out within the demili- tarized zone wlthout \ts bemg consulted. traité pourrait-elle 49. Sixth, the territory compns1l1g the demilitarized zone had been for the most part under Syrian occupa- tion, as l have already stated. vVhen a final peace agree- ment has been conclnded, Syria will certainly insist that this territory should he returned to its control. Undcr such conditions, how could Syria accept a situa- tion in which a foreign company wot1ld enter territory, claimed by Syria, for the purpose of undertaking a great projeet withollt Syria's consent? plorons pour 50. It was for these reasons that Syria was the first State to protest and to bring the matter to the att~ntion of the Chief of Staff and, later, of the Security CaunciI. Syria wanted this conflict to be settled locally by the 01ief of Staff and the Mixed Armistice Conu11ission, lmowing that such controversies should be locally solved by these international organs on the scene. We were sorry that the other party obstructec1 this lawful pro- cedure by refusing to attend the meetings of the Mixed Armistice Conu11ission, giving impertinent reasons for its refusaI. In one of its 1etters to the Chief of Staff, dated 8 March, the Israel delegation declined ta attend the meeting schedl1led for that clay, asking that it should be postponed sine d'ie [5/2049, para. 6]. Since that time, no meeting could be held. 51. On another occasion they wrote to the Chief of Staff [5/2084, para. 25] : "Tlie Israel delegation to the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission has been instrueted to attend no further meetings with the Syrian delegation while Syrian forces are firing on United Nations observers and on the police responsible for the security of the demilitarized zone". In another letter they wrote [5/2084, para. 25]: "It is with deep regret that l have to inform you t~Jat l find myself llnable to allow the Israel delega- t~on to the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commis- SlOn to take any part in meetings ta be chairmanned by Çolonel Georges Bossavy or to have anyfurther offiClul contact with hi111." 53. This is jllSt al10ther way ta intimidate honest people and .the duly appointed representatives of the ~~llte~ Nahons and to accuse them of partiality and 1l1justlce. The Chief of Staff refused to take any action on those letters until he had received in writing the reasons for such decision. The last report we have 54. Indeecl we are at a lo~s ta comprehen.d the first pretext of accusing the Synan torces of finng on the United Nations observers when t~e observers them- selves clicl not make such allegatlOn. How .are the Israelis concerned in this matter? They are not ll1stal~ecl as guarclians of United Nations obse~vers. T~e Synan forces never openecl fire on the Umted NatIons I?er- sonne!. They have sufficient est.eem for the Umtec1 Nations staff and never enterta1l1ed any thought of l110lesting the;n or annoying or displeasing them. 55. As ta the second pretext raised by.the c1enouncing of Colonel Bossavy, it is based on nothmg sound. We read in the Press that they accused Colonel Bossavy of being pro-Arab. 'IVe know that the personnel of the staff are selected from persans who are known ta be impartial, persans of integrity an~ jl;1stice. If any of them departs from those noble pnnclples, they would presumably not side with the Syrians, who have. no means of attraction or intimiclation. Tt has been ObVlOUS since the time of the first Mediator in 1948 that the Jews accuse of partiality any mediator or officer who cloes not comply with their extravagant desires. They do not hesitate ta deal incorrectl}' with those who do not put themselves and their possibilities at their dis- posaI. We read in the thirc1 'report [5/2084, para. 31]: "On the afternoon of 6 April, three United Nations observers were stopped on the trac1< leading from Baqqara village ta the Mishmar Hay Yarc1en police station by a group of armed Israelis who sur- rounded them and threatened them with c1eath. They were told that next time they were found on thât track they would be shot. The observers returned ta the main road at gun point." 56. This is the report given by the Chief of Staff. This is the way the Israelis show their courtesy and respect for United Nations officers. Syria, in this dis- pute created by the Israelis, endeavoured ta safeguard its rights through the legal channels established by Security Council representatives. Bath Israelis and Syrians pledged compliance. Only after failure ta obtain justice locally, owing ta sabotage by Israel authorities, were we obliged ta bring the case ta the Securitv Council. . 57. The Syrian delegation ta the Mixee! Armistice Commission protested vigorously against the unjustified allegations that the Syrian forces hacl openee! fire on United ~.ati~ns personnel or that they had penetrated !he c1~l111htanzecl zone of Hamma. The Chief of Staff 111vestlgated this second point, and his emissaries re- ported ta him that no Syrian armecl forces were found 111 that area. The contrary is true. Many sectors of the 58. It is obvious under the present circumstances that the Syrian Government cannot remain unconcerned in this matter of a drainage project. The Israel represen- tative in the area wilfully intended to divert the re- sponsibility of worsening the situation from Israel to Syria, so as to create a pretext to bomb Arab villages and completely demolish them, causing their inhabitants ta desert their homes, leaving them to be consumed by the Jewish fire. The Jews macle it plain that this action was in retaliation for certain casualties which its attacking group suffered in a clash in the Hamma area. The thircl report of the Chief of Staff dealing with this incident of the Hamma casualties is not clear on de- fining the responsibility, but it is clear that this Israel armed group was found on a spot of the demilitarized zone where the legality of its presence was doubtful and was contested. The Syrians are sure that this Israel patral attacked its outpost and was repulsed. 59. Uncler any circumstances such casualties, inci- dental clashes and border sldnnishes may occur at any time in isolated outposts without the Imowledge of governments, and such incidents are subject to subse- quent investigation through which the perpetrators will either be punished or acquitted. But acts of retaliation carried out by a squaclron of bombers and fighters which drop explosives and bomb villages and military posts cannot be claimed to have been done by isolated factors without the knowledge of the central Government. Such an outrage can only be carried out by order of the central authority as a premeditated and resolute action. 60. The Press reported, as noted above, that in Tel- Aviv the central Gover11lnent aclmitted that it was done by its consent. As this atrocious act cannot have any justification in any way, it is to be considerecl simply as .an .international crime of determined aggression WhlCh lS conden1l1ed by the Charter of the UnitedNa- tions and by international law. 61. The outrages committed by Israel during the last ~wo ~nonths are numerous, but they have culminated 1ll thlS bombing of the villages. This aggression is such as ta warrant the focusing' of the Security Coundl's attention on it. 62:· The thircl direction from which the drainage enter- pnse met opposition is the United Nations Truce Su- per,:ision Organization, the Chief of Staff of which is Chamnan of the Mixed Armistice Commission. The control. of ancl authority over a demilitarized zone is veste.cl .11l the Chief of Staff by virtue of the General Annlstlce Agreement. Article V as a whole establishes "The Chainnan of the Mixed Armistice Commis- sion establishec1 in article VII of this Agreement and United Nations observers attached to the Com- mission shall be responsible for ensuring the full im- plementation of this article." 63. In sub-paragraph 5 (e), it is stated: "The Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Comll1is- slon shall be ernpowered to authorize the return of civilians to villages and settlements in the demili- tarizecl zone and the ell1ployment of limited numbers of 10cally recruited civilian police in the zone for internai security purposes .. ," 64. These are the decisive qualifications conferred upon the Chief of Staff and the observers and thè Mixed Armistice Commission, but it is to be regretted that the Israel allthorities deny them these powers and claim for themselves the responsibility of public order and internai security in the c1emilitarized zone. Re1ying upon this arbitrary pretension, they sencl patrols of their police force to those zones, and by this un- warrantec1 intrusion cause clashes and deplorable casuàlties. 65. The Chief of Staff asked them to c1arify what they meant by c1aiming that their police had the respon- sibility for the security of the demilitarized zone, while the above-cited sub-paragraph 5 (c) of article V is clear that this responsibility lies only in the police who are recruited 10cally and put under the control of the United Nations staff. In his letter of 6 April the Acting Chief of Staff wrote [S/2084, para. 26] : "1 am at a loss to understand why the Israel rep- res711tative ~hould cite this" -;;- the firing upon the Ul1Ited NatIOns observers - as a reason for his refus~l.to attend .any further meetings llf the Mixed Anl11stlce C0111mlsslOn." 66. In ~~ite .of this, Israel sent its police to penetrate the demllrtanzed zone, to arrest Arab individuals dragging them into their courts on false accusations and confining them in jail. 67. As .é;ll t~1e clrainage works tmdertaken fall within the d~nllhtanz7d zone, and as the authority over this zO~1e lS exc1.us~vely vest7d. in the Chief of Staff, the MI~ed An-r:lstrce Com:11lSSlOn and the observers, this U111t~d N atron~ organ IS 110t only entitled to intervene but lS also o?hged, by virtue of the provisions of the Agreement C1t~d, ta mtervene and straighten out the c;ooked behavlOLtr of any persan, group or party. A slll11.?le pe~usal ?f any of the three reports before us de~111lg wlth thls question makes it evident that the Chlef of.Staff .and ~he observers attempted honestly to fultil thel~ dubes wlsely ancl impartially. The Chief of Staff recelved the C01111?laints presentecl to hi111 and re- ferred them to the Mlxed Armistice Commission for stud.y, but the Israel. d~legation obstructed the pro- ceedl!1gs of the Commlsslon by declining to attend the meebngs, as l have already stated, and as it is ex- 68. The Chief of Staff explained to bath sides that no party has sovereignty over the demilitarized zone, and he advised Israel not to start the work before coming to an agreement with the Syrian Government and ob- taining the f:ee consent of the owners of the land whe~e these operatlon~ were to be cOl!ducted. But l Israel dI.d not listen to hiS recommendatlOns. He repeated thiS demand several times, but Israel disregarded the advice and even his presence. 69. It was stated in the Press that the Prime Minister of Israel issued a challenge by declaring, in Tel Aviv, that Israel (lis determ.ined to continue draining the Huleh Lake under any cir'éumstances and put the ques- tion of renewed war and peace between the two COltn- tries up ta Syria." That is an open defiance by the head of the Government of Israel of the finn stand taken by the United Nations representatives. It is not surprising ta see the Israel Govermnent defying the orders of the Chief of Staff in the Buleh case after having seen this same Government defying the General Assembly resolutions, adopted at the third, fourth and fifth sessions, 2 ordering the repatriatioll of those Arab refugees wishing to return to their homes in Palestine and compensating those not wishing to return, and ordering the internationalization of the Holy Places inc1uding Jerusalem and its area. 69. d'Israël qu'Israël les Boulé si les le tude Unies. vernement les que que quatrième voyaient dans que devaient saints, internationalisés. 70. résolutions, se cées vations, et gers du 71. pays il tée . l'écrasante Nations .quant. actes, Unies. les recours empressés inviter Unies à 70. Israel has persistently and boldly been defying these resolutions, and in the meantime about a million persons have been expeUed from their hOInes, scattered herc and there in miserable conditions of life, suffering an the hardships of privation" with their homes, furni- ture, wealth, gardens and fields appropriated by foreign intruders coming from aU corners of the world to possess the rich loot of this robbery. 71. We lmo:w of only one other country which defied a decision of the Security Council, and that was the decision of the Security Council of 25 June 1950 [S11501]. But the overwhelming majority of the Members of the United Nations flew to anns to punish the defier. Israel does not fear repercussions against it for it considers itself to be the pet beloved child of the United Nations. The Member. States of the United Nations dic! not fly to arms in the face of Israel's bold defiance, but the great majority of them did fiy to vote.s, inviting Israel to membership in the United NatIOns, leaving Israel's victims to their sorrow. sième 212 et (V) ~~SSlon, Part I, ResolHtions, Nos. 194 (III) and 212 (III); liJ1d., f'ollrth Session, Resolutions, Nos. 302 (IV) and 303 (IV); ibid., Fifth Session, ResolHtions, Nos. 393 (V) and 394 (V). 73. On 9 April the delegation of Israel submitted the tluce complaints recorded in document 5/2077, fi:s~ a c01l1plaint of Syrian violation of the ~eneral Arm.1stlce Agre{'ment between Israel and Syna by pers1stent firing on civilian workers near Banat Yakt,lb; secondly, the Syrian violation of the General Anmstlce Agr~e­ ment between Israel and Syria by the entry of Syn.an armed forces into the demilitarized zone, a complamt which was also simultaneously referred 1;0 the Chair- man of the Mixed Armistice Commission; and, finally, the cOlnplaint of Syrian violation of t!le ,General Arrr~is­ tice Agreement between Israel and Syna by the actlOn of Syrian armed forces in killing seven Israel civilian policemen and wounding three, 74. Since this series of complaints was put before the Council, further instances of Syrian firing upon Israel civilians have occurred, also with fatal results. Indeed, aH the victims of this sarry affair have been Israel citizens who have faHen to Syrian fire, The reasons which animated my government ta make these com- plaints ta the Security COl1ncil were derived primarily from the CirCl1111stance that a clear breach of the peace existed in the light of Syrian armed violence, and althol1gh the Government of Israel took immecliate action, as it is entitled ta do within the terms of Article 51 of the Charter, it desired ta limit that action to the utmost possible extent and ta seek redress in this Conncil. Bnt above everything else our appeal ta the Sccl1rity Council was animated by the cirCl1mstance that the Mixed Armistice Commission, which under ~he terms of the Armistice Agreement should pass )ll(lgment, fix responsibilities and suggest remedies in aU such cases, \Vas in a state of paralysis and inertia at ~hat time, owing ta the relationship existing between lts members. 75. In recent weeks the Government of Israel, as well as the Government of Syria, has been approached by the representative of the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization with urgent <lJ)peal~ t? restore the activity of the Mixed Armistice C0111nllss1On .and ta put its complaints together with those of Syn~ tlpon the agenda of that institution, The relevant sectlOn of the General Armistice Agreement article VII, paragraph 7, states: ' "<:;1aims or coml?laints presented by either party relatll1g t? the ~pphcation of this Agreement shaH be re~er.red uumedlUte1y ta the Mixed Armistice Com- nllSS10n throu,gh its Chairman, The Commission shaH take such actlOn on al! such c1aims or complaints by 76. A few days ago, Colonel Bennett De Ridder, Acting Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organ- ization, sought th~ agreement of my government to the following four pOl11ts: (1) That all milita~y and para-military f?~ce~ of both sides should be wlthdrawn from the demllltanzed zone; (2) That no further fighting within the zone or across demarcation lines should take place; (3) That full facilities sl;oulcl be aff?rded.to United Nations observers for carrY1l1g out thelr dutles; and (4) That the responsibility of the Mixed Armistice Commission Chairman to implement article V of the Armistice Agreement on the resumption of normal life in the zone be reaffirmed. 77. The representative of the Government of Israel indicated his assent to these procedures, provided of course that a similar and corresponding acceptance was secured on the Syrian side. My government has sinee been informed that the Syrian side has indicated its acceptance of these procedures and principles. 'A/hile my government seeks an early opportunity to express its views before a suitable forum on the substance of these questions, it must ask the Security Council ta take the responsibility for determining what that forum is. One of the elem.ents in the decision of the Security Couneil is the provision of the Armistice Agreement which l have just quoted. 78. On 17 November 1950, the Security Council adopted a resolution [5/1907, 5/1907/Corr.1] which reads in part as follows: "The Security Couneil... Calls upon the parties. .. to consent to the handling of complaints according to the procedures established in the armis- tice agreements for the handling of complaints and the settlement of points at issue". 79. This resolution was adopted in reaction to the initiative taken by certain governments last October in bringing to the Security Council complaints which, like ail the complaints now before it, have not been the sub- ject of discussion, adjudication or appeal in the Mixed Armistice Commission itself. 80. l am at the disposaI of the Security Council. The Government of Israel will be prepared to malee a full statement of its case on all these questions before the app~opriate organ. But if the Security Council wishes t? Clrcumvent the procedures laid down in the Armis- tlce Agreement and to enter itself into the details of these complaints, l feel that that is a deeision which it must take. My own delegation has no doubt at ail that th~ ~roper procedure, once the Mixed Armistice Com- mlSSlOns have been reconstituted, is to hold the dis-

We aH agree thn.t since these grave matters have been bronght to our attention we should at least do our very best ta establish the faets. For that purpose and none other, we wonld be weU advised ta hear eviclence from General Riley himself, assuming that he can come here and give eviclence in the near future. l understand that he probably cano Therefore l suggest that aH we need do now is ta agree in principle that we shaH hear General Riley and leave it ta the President ta fix the date of the next meeting when the representative of Israel may be able ta expiain his point of view, possibly at greater length.

The President is grateful to the representative of the United Kingc10m for his helpfui suggestion. If it is the feeling of the Conncil that it should try ta avail itself of the expert lmowledge of General Riley - who, l understancl, may be in a position ta come before the Council, within perhaps a week, at its invitation - l shaH be very happy ta try ta contact hirn and extend ta him the invitation of the Council ta appear in arder ta give such clarification as he may see fit and perhaps ta answer questions which sorne of the members may wish ta put ta him. 83. As there is no objection to that procedure, l suggest that we now adjourn and l shaH inform the rnernbers of the Council of the time of the l1ext meeting.

In reference ta the remark of the representative of the United Kingclom, l shaH of conrse be prepared to outline the views of my governrnent at the next meeting of the Council on aU the complaints which now lie before it. SALES AGENTS fOR UNITED DEPOSITAIRES DES PUBLICATIONS INLANDE ARGENTINA - AR~ENTINE . ~INL~~~;; ~'rjakauppa, Edltor,.l Sud.me"cana S.A., Calle ~~Je Helsinki. Alsina 500, Buenos Aires. k 'E AUSTRALIA - AUSTRALIE ~~tt~~s A Pedone H. A. Goddard (Pty.l, Ltd., 255a George par',Oy" Street, Sydney, N.S.W. CÈ _ GRECE BELGIUM .... BELGIO,UE ~~feitheroudakls,,, Librairie Agence et Messageries de larresse S.A., nale Place de la Constitution, 14·22 rue du Persil, Bruxel es. , EMALA W. H. Smith & Son h M GU.AbT d & C'a ltda 71 75 Boulevard Adolp e· ax, Gou au 1 • Br~xelles. num. 2B, 2 do Plso, .Guatemala BOLlYIA BOLIVIE HAITI Llbrerfa ëï;ntlRca y L1terarla, Avenlda Max Bouchereau, LIbrairie 16 de Julio 216, Casllla 972, La paz velle." Bo11e (lostale BRAZIL _ BRESIL Prince. Llvrarl. Agir Rua Mexico 98·B, Cain HONDURAS Postal 3291,'RIO de JaneIro. L1brerta Panamericana, CANADA - CANADA ,Fuente, TegucIgalpa. The Ryerson Press, 299 Queen Street ICELAND -ISLANDE Wesl, Toronto. Bokavmlun. Slgfusar CEYLON - CEYLAN Austurstretl lB, ReykJavIk. The AS50clated Newspapers of Ce~;!on. INDIA -INDE lId Lake House, Colombo. Oxford Book & Stat CHIl.E CHILI . House, New Delhi. Llbrerl;ïvens, Calle Moneda 822, INDONESIA -INDONESIE Santiag.. Jajasan Pembangunan, CHINA _ CHINE 84, Djakarta. The Commercial Press, Ud., 211 Honan IRAQ -IRAK Road, Shanghai. Mackenzle's Bookshop, COl.OMBIA - COLOMBIE S~ationers, Baghdad. Llbrerla Latina Ltda., Apartado ..Aéreo IRAN 4011, Bogotol. Ketab·Khaneh Danesh, COSTA RICA - COSTA·RICA AYenue, Teheran. Trelos Hermanos, Aparlado 1313, San IRELAND -IRLANDE José. Hlbernian General Agency CUBA cial Buildings, Dame La casa Befga, René de Smedt, O/RellIy ISRAEL 455, L. Habana. Leo Blumstein, P.O.B. CZECHOSLOVAKIA _ 35 Allenby Road, Tel·AvIv. TCHECOSLOVAO,UIE ITALY -ITALIE CeskoslovenskY Splsov'tel Narodnl1'Flda CoUbri S.A., Via Chlossetto 9, Praha 1. LEBANON _ LIBAN DENMARK - DANEMARK librairie universelle, Einar Munksgaard, N~rregade 6, LIBERIA K~benhavn. J. Momolu Kamara, DOMINlCAN REPUBLIC - Streets, MonrovIa. REPUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE LUXEMBOURG L1brerla Domlnlcana, Calle Mercedes No. librairie J. Schummer, 49, Apartado 656, Ciudad TruJIllo. Luxembourg. ECUADOR,.- EO,UATEUR MEXICO _ MEXIQUE MuRoz Hermanos '1 Cla" Plaza dei Editorial Hermes, S.A., Teatro,. Quito. cal 41, Mexico, D. EGYPT - EGYPTE· NETHERLANDS - Librairie "la Renaissance d'Egypte," N.V. MartInus Nljhoff. 9 SH. Adly Pasha, Calro. 9, 's·Gravenhage. EL SALVADOR- SALVADOR NEW ZEALAND- Manuel Navas y Ciao "La Casa deI L1br. NOUVELLE.ZELANDE Barato" la Avenlda sur num. 37, SaD United NatlollS Association Salvador. land, G.P.O. 1011, ETHIOPIA - ETHIOPIE NICARAGUA Agenc~ Ethiopienne de PublicIté, Box 8, Dr. Ramiro Ramlr~z Addls·Abeba. Publlcaclones, Managua, United Nal/on. publlcollon. can furlhe, be obla/ned ',om the 101l0w/ng "oohelle,.; GERMANY - ALLEMAGNE AUSTRIA - AUTRICHE Bucllhandlung Elwert & M~urer, Haupt-" Il. Wüllerslortf, Waagp!atz, stram, lOI, Berlln·Schiineberg. Salzburg. W. E. Saarbach, Frankenstrasse, 14, Kliln.Junkersdorf. JAPAN - JAPO,., Alexander /jorn, Spleg.lgasse, 9, Maruzen Co., Ltd., Wiesbaden. Nlhonbashl, Tokyo Central. Ordo,. .nd lnqulries lrom counlrle. w~ere .ales egenh haye not yet been appolntod may be .ent to: Sai.. and Circulation Section, United Nations, New York. U.S.A.' or Sales Section, United Natfon. Office. Palai. des Nation., Genev., Sw1txerl.nd. l'rinled in Canada Priee; 25 cents (or equivalellt in