Mideast situation/Karameh – SecCo debate – Verbatim record

UNITED NATIONS

SECURITY COUNCIL

OFFICIAL RECORDS

TWENTY-THIRD YEAR

1406TH  MEETING: 23 MARCH 1968

NEW YORK

CONTENTS

S/PV.1406

President: Mr. Ousmane Soce DIOP (Senegal).

Present: The representatives of the following States: Algeria, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Hungary, India, Pakistan, Paraguay, Senegal, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America.

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1406/Rev.1)

1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. The situation in the Middle East:

(a)  Letter dated 21 March 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8484);

(b) Letter dated 21 March 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Israel addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8486).

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

The situation in the Middle East:

(a)  Letter dated 21 March 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8484);

(b) Letter dated 21 March 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Israel addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8486).

1. The president (translated from French): In accordance with the Council's earlier decision, I propose to invite the representatives of the two countries which have requested this meeting of the Security Council, Jordan and Israel, to take places at the Council table for the duration of the discussion on the question now before us.  I also propose to invite the representatives of the United Arab Republic, Iraq, Morocco and Syria to take the places that have been reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding that when it is their turn to speak they will be invited to take places at the Council table.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. H. El-Farra (Jordan) and Mr Y. Tekoah (Israel) took places at the Council table, and Mr. M. A. El-Kony (United Arab Republic), Mr. A. Pachachi (Iraq), Mr. A. T. Benhima (Morocco) and Mr. G.J. Tomeh (Syria) took places reserved for them.

2. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): The first speaker on my list is the representative Israel, on whom I now call.

3. Mr. TEKOH (Israel The day before yesterday, Mr. President, I requested you to convene an urgent meeting of the Security Council to examine the continuous campaign of acts of violence and aggression pursued from Jordanian territory against my country and my people.  The Security Council is now fully acquainted with the situation.  An illegal, aggressive war waged by the Arab States, Members of the United Nations against another Member State, Israel: a large-scale, co-ordinate and organized campaign of terror, sabotage and slaughter, carried on incessantly and indiscriminately against men, women and children, towns and villages, at night and in daylight-this is the basic problem.

4. The Security Council cannot, the Security Council must not remain silent on it.  The people of Israel, who have lived in the shadow of war for the last twenty years, turn to you again in the hope that the Council will not ignore the mortal perils created by the continuation of these Arab acts of aggression, that it will not belittle our suffering, that it will not refuse us relief from the offensive of destruction and death which we face.  The Arab representatives have tried to win from the Council approval and licence to continue with their warfare of assassination and sabotage against my people.  We await to Council's response.

5. Will the result of our deliberations bring encouragement to those who pursue war and sow death? Will it be interpreted as disregard for Israel's request that the present threatening situation not be permitted to continue, not be allowed to escalate to an even graver state?

6. If in the mind of anyone there could have doubt as to the circumstances in which Israel was compelled to take measures against the bases of aggression and terrorism, the summary which I submitted yesterday to the Council [1404th meeting] on what we discovered in the camps of the raiders on the east bank and the reports published in today's press from eye-witness in Jordan should reveal fully the extent of the menace and the magnitude of the assault with which we are coping.

7. In this morning's New York Times we find a striking description of the terrorist organization, their training and activities, and I should like to quote from the report:

"Karameh camp was swarming today with men carrying Soviet-made machine-guns and grenades and vocing pride over the fight they put up yesterday.

"…

"A group of visiting reporters was turned back at gunpoint today, but later a group of four accompanied by a Jordanian Army captain spent twenty minutes in the camp before they, too, were ordered to leave.

"A Jordanian policeman, one of about half a dozen in the camp, identified the men as members of the Resistance National Guard.

"But other Jordanians said freely that they were members of El-Fatah, a Palestinian guerrilla group dedicated to underground warfare against Israel.

"A Jordanian who was with the visiting reporters and another who had been to Karameh earlier in the day with King Hussein and Premier Bahjat al-Talhouni on an inspection tour of the subsea-level valley, gave the following account …

"… the commandos moved into the ghost camp and the Israelis apparently learned of their presence.

"When the Israel armor smashed into Karameh yesterday, the commandos took to the hills, they said, because their ammunition was running low.

"Meanwhile, Israel helicopters landed '400 to 500' troops near the foothills about half a mile east of the camp. There again the commandos fought them, resorting finally to knives when their ammunition was exhausted, they told the Jordanians."

8. It is now evident that we are confronted by a fully geared war machine that has been set up for the purpose of launching against Israel a large-scale offensive in the hope that the special methods employed would give it immunity from any measures of self-defense that Israel might find it necessary to take and from censure by the Security Council.

9. It is with great expectation that the entire world awaits the Security Council's decision on the respective Israel and Jordanian complaints: on one hand, a complaint against continuous war, terror, incursions, destruction and murder, a complaint against the sanctuary that Jordan openly grants on its territory to terrorists, marauders and saboteurs; on the other hand, a complaint on measures taken by Israel in defense against this sinister type of aggression. I am certain that all members of the Security Council realize how heavily their stand and their decision will weigh upon the prospects of peace and security in the Middle East.

10. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I now call on the representative of Jordan.

11. Mr. EL-FARRA (Jordan): I shall not burden the Council with a lengthy statement at this late stage in our deliberations, but certain points raised by the Israel representative and repeated time and again and on every occasion call for an answer. I do not think that the Security Council took the Israel representative seriously when he said that he had also submitted a complaint to the Security Council and requested an urgent meeting of the Council. Mr. Tekoah did not come to our Council with clean hands.

He came to this Council after Israel had committed a crime and had admitted having committed a crime. So I think, Sir, that you do understand the motives behind this complaint. It is nothing but an attempt to divert the attention of the Council from the real issue before it to irrelevant and fabricated allegations. I had hoped that the Council would not permit this complaint to be incorporated in its agenda. This is a tactic an old pattern, well known to the Council.

12. In July 1966, Syria submitted a complaint and presented details of another serious crime committed and admitted by Israel. Israel, following this same pattern, presented a counter-charge to divert world public opinion and the Security Council. At that time I objected to the inclusion of that charge as a combined item with the complaint of Syria. We had a lengthy debate in the Security Council and it was decided that no combined debate would take place, that the complaint of Syria would be considered first, as item (a), and that item (b) would be considered following the adoption of a resolution on item (a).

13. When there is a clear attempt to divert, to fabricate, I think that it should be the duty of the Council not to permit such distortion. It would not be in keeping with the dignity of the Council-I do not speak of the dignity of the one who presented the complaint in the circumstances.

14. The representative of Israel raised the question of who lives in Karameh. He said that the Israel forces when they committed their attack did not see the local inhabitants of the west bank in Karameh. He has the ability to differentiate between who comes from the west bank and who does not. The people of Karameh were there; they, continue to be there. The claim of Mr. Tekoah is contradicted not only by the reports of the United Nations, the report of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, but by the many press visitors, journalists, dignitaries. I need not mention many of them here, but when I was in Jordan Mr. Eugene Black was there. He came a day or two after the crime of Israel on 15 February 1968; he met the people, talked to the people, and the people were there. They mentioned their names, where they came from, which part of Palestine they came from. Now we hear Mr. Tekoah saying that the people there were not the people of the- camp.

15. The claim that Karameh camp was a terrorist base is again a new claim. We in the area are used to it. This is an attempt to cover up, to give justification for killing every young man in Karameh on the contention or allegation or claim that he is El-Fatah, he is fedayeen, and he should be either killed or kidnapped or taken to the occupied area.

16. This is not the first time we face such a contention and such a claim. In October 1956, when the Israelis invaded Sinai, when the Israel forces occupied the Gaza Strip, they came and entered Khan Yunis, a town in the Gaza Strip. They killed-and the record of the United Nations is there to testify to this-most of the young men in Khan Yunis, saying that they were the fedayeen, the commandos. The same thing is repeated today. Here they are telling the Security Council that all those in Karameh are not the people of Karameh; they are El-Fatah. Therefore the Israelis can do what they like, commit crimes, kill them, murder them, kidnap them, take them back to the occupied area, and so on.

17. Tekoah said yesterday that the local inhabitants were armed. I wonder whether the Israel invaders were expecting the Karameh people to receive them with an arch of triumph or greet them with bouquets of flowers. Or did they think that the Karameh camp was a sporting club or a picnic area for them to enter?

18. As human beings they resisted; they did not surrender to the aggressor, and they will never do so. When Israelis come back to invade, kill and destroy the people of Karameh are determined to be there and again to meet them and to defend themselves and their beloved soil. They will resist aggression, they will resist the aggressor, with all the means at their disposal. In this last Israel attack there was hand-to-hand fighting. This is not unique behavior. It is the determination of a people who believe that no price is too great for liberty and no sacrifice too dear for freedom. This body, the Security Council, is the instrument which by its action can prevent crimes of this nature. Resistance to crimes of the Israelis is not unique. It is always the answer when there is invasion, and the Security Council offers a better and more effective deterrent.

19. Mr. Tekoah referred to certain demonstrations in Halwan and other parts of Cairo. He failed to say, however, that all demonstrations wanted the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of foreign troops from all Arab territories.

20. The Israel distortions went so far as to say yesterday that the people of the west bank are happy and that it is the Arab Governments which do not want peace. On this I leave it to the members around this table, who are familiar with the reaction of people under foreign domination and their reaction to foreign invasion. All members around this table have experienced foreign invasion in one form or another. They all reacted in the only normal and natural way. The people of the west bank, of Gaza, of Sinai and of -Syria are not exceptions to the rule.

21. I have with me a red book. It embodies thirty-seven documents about the resistance of the west bank of Jordan to the Israel occupation. This is a book which was issued by the Institute for Palestine Studies, which is founded by no less a person than His Excellency the President of Lebanon, Dr. Charles Helou, with a membership of Members of Parliament, professors of the American University of Beirut, and other dignitaries. This book contains thirty–seven documents pertaining to Arab resistance and protest against the Israel occupation. It is available to any member around this table who wants to know more about Israel crimes and more about the resistance in the area.

22. I now turn to the statements of my colleague from the United States, Mr. Goldberg. He seems to imply that in raising the question of pressure groups in the United States and tax-exempt donations, my country, small Jordan, was intervening in the domestic affairs of the United States. I submit that the contrary is true. It is these pressure groups which are intervening in the domestic affairs and the security of Jordan. They help a foreign non-American authority politically and financially to invade my land and expel my people. Through these tax-exempt donations, Israel was armed to the teeth and thus was tempted to occupy- the west bank of Jordan. Thanks to fund-raising and propaganda the Israelis adopted the policy of terror. Thus I ask the question in all fairness and in all justice: Are those pressure groups not accomplices to this terror? And an accomplice to an act of terror is a terrorist. The Security Council is expected to condemn these terrorists and not to point its finger at the rightful owners of the land who are thrown across the Jordan river and thrown from their homes to live in huts and caves and tents.

23. Those are the people of Palestine. They are liberty-seeking and freedom-loving; it is for that reason, and in accordance with the Charter, that they are struggling. No, I am not intervening in the domestic affairs of the United States, a great Power. Jordan is a small country.

24. I now turn to a very important question, raised time and again during our debates yesterday and the day before yesterday. It is the question of peace and stability and security. They are beautiful words, beautiful terms; but we should examine the deeds. Some members spoke about having observers on the so-called cease-fire line. In the first place, let me say that there is no such thing as a cease-fire line. There are cease-fire resolutions and a cease-fire area, but I know of no cease-fire line.

25. The Israel representative, for obvious reasons, referred time and again to the so-called cease-fire line. We heard other representatives, either intentionally or because of an oversight, speak about a cease-fire line. Now we are asked to consider the possibility of having observers on that so-called cease-fire line. We welcome the stationing of observers on both sides of the armistice demarcation line. That is the line recognized by the Security Council and by the United Nations; that is the only line I am aware of which is recognized by the United Nations as such.

26. We welcome the strengthening of the United Nations machinery created for observing, that is, the Mixed Armis-tice Commission machinery; it is the only United Nations machinery created for observing. We hope that Member States will not create a situation which would enable the Israelis to consolidate the fruits of their aggression and their program for new expansion. We want to see the Armistice Agreement fully activated. That is what we want. That is what Israel is evading.

27. Much has been said about a cease-fire, cease-fire agreements, cease-fire machinery and cease-fire observers. While we support the armistice machinery in the area, we do not support anything new which would freeze the so-called cease-fire line until such time as the Israel program of expansion is fulfilled. That is something detrimental to peace in the area. We want immediate withdrawal; then observers on the armistice demarcation line, together with a strengthening of the United Nations aggression. Articles 41 and 42 give ample latitude for the Security Council to exercise its authority. It is high time to face the aggressor and uphold the principles of the Charter.

35. We have proclaimed our peaceful intentions, but let there be no mistake: peace does not mean surrender, nor does it mean the legalization of a fait accompli. The Arab people are determined to recover every inch of their homeland whatever the cost, whatever the sacrifice.

36. Let us hope that peace will be achieved, for in peace we firmly believe, and for peace we shall earnestly endeavor.

37. Mr. IGNATIEFF (Canada): A tenuous peace in a troubled area, based on cease-fire arrangements stemming from resolutions of this Council, has been roughly and harshly disturbed by the latest developments.

38. Following a Mounting number of incidents, of infil-tration and sabotage on the Israel side of the Israel-Jordan sector, referred to in the Secretary-General's report of this day [S/793O/Add.64], an extensive military action by Israel in Jordan has brought about a highly dangerous situation in the Middle East.

39. My country greatly deplores this recourse to violence in the area. We likewise deplore the loss of life and suffering and express our heartfelt sympathy with those affected. The road to a permanent peace in the Middle East cannot be paved with this type of forceful military action which has been undertaken during the last twenty-four hours.

40. I wish to join with earlier speakers in affirming that the Security Council, summoned to deal with the present situation, cannot condone these acts of violence. The Council must insist on scrupulous observance of the cease-fire, and a cessation of all military activities as required by several Security Council resolutions which are well known.

41. I would at the same time appeal to both Israel and Jordan to facilitate the assignment by the Secretary-General of United Nations observers to supervise the cease-fire. The need for this action is demonstrated all too clearly in the information passed on by General Odd Bull and contained in the report of the Secretary-General to which I have referred.

42. The Council is undoubtedly placed at a disadvantage by the absence of an impartial source of information which only United Nations observers can provide. In its absence we are obliged to rely on ex parte statements.

43. By helping to establish conditions of calm, United Nations supervision would assist the efforts of the United Nations special representative to achieve agreement on the application of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and hence to remove the circumstances which have led to this deplorable outbreak of violence. Moreover, we must recog-nize that in addition to imposing suffering on the people in the countries concerned, such outbreaks seriously endanger the task undertaken by the United Nations special represen-tative.

44. The supreme need in the Middle East is peace. That was the objective of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and is the acknowledged aim of the parties. But it is not the language of the resolutions of the Security Council which will bring peace to this tormented area and its unfortunate inhabitants; it is the will and action of the Governments concerned.

45. I do not see that a better opportunity is available to the Governments than the peace mission authorized by the Council through the Secretary-General's special representative; and I believe that we have a right in the Council to request urgently that every effort be made by the Governments concerned to co-operate with the Jarring mission.

46. In addition to other measures, members of the Council might therefore consider the possibility of taking this opportunity: first, to reaffirm Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967; second, to call on the parties concerned to accept that resolution; third, to Call on the parties concerned to co-operate with the Secretary. General's special representative, Mr. Jarring, in his endeavors-and I quote from the resolution: "to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution".

47. I would hope, therefore, that whatever else may come Out of this debate, our action here will strengthen the mission which this Council entrusted to the Secretary. General's special representative and the will of the Governments concerned to work for a political solution rather than have recourse to force.

48. Mr. BORCH (Denmark): My Government has followed with the utmost concern developments over the last days and weeks along the cease-fire line between Israel and Jordan and the increasing number of violent actions across that cease-fire line, the latest of them being the very serious large-scale Israel military action against objectives in Jordan.

49. Those unfortunate incidents have demonstrated once more the deplorable lack of stability in the area and the urgent need for a just and lasting peace as called for unanimously by the Council in its resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. We supported that resolution as indeed we have supported all resolutions of the Council since the outbreak of the war in the Middle East in June 1967. By the same token we must deplore all violations of the cease-fire established and maintained in accordance with several resolutions of the Security Council.

50. We must oppose violence and the resort to force and insist upon complete compliance with the cease-fire reso-lutions. Violations of these resolutions are not only contrary to the specific arrangements in force in the area, but also cannot but poison the atmosphere and even carry with them the risk of continued and increased conflict. In any case they cannot but impede progress towards the objectives of the above-mentioned resolution.

51. The task with which the Secretary-General and his special representative were entrusted, in particular in 53. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I call on the representative of Jordan.

change of heart, mind and behavior. Peace must be practiced. They have to practice peace.

42. As to the west bank of Jordan, these are documents not signed by people outside the west bank, but signed by the leaders; signed by the Mayor of Jerusalem, Mr. Rouhi El-Khatib, who was expelled two weeks ago by the Israelis; signed by Mr. Anton Attalah, the former Foreign Minister of Jordan who appeared before you here, and was expelled and deported by force; signed by Ibrahim Baker, a well-known leader who was also expelled by the Israelis; signed by many, of those who were expelled because they signed those documents, because they resisted. Many others are still there. I do not have to go to find out. I can ask those who were expelled, those who are now across the river.

43. So no matter how much Mr. Tekoah sings the song of peace, the world knows. Facts are there, they do not need too much examination. All you have to do is to look at the map, look at the practice, look at the behavior, look at the crimes and look at the attacks against Jordan every day. It does not need much effort to find out who is for peace and who is for war and aggression.

44. Also, we can look at the reports of the United Nations. Mr. Gussing has something to say. You have the report;2/ it has not yet been examined by the Security Council, but it is there. Other documents are there. We expect our able and competent Secretary -General very soon to send his special representative to go and examine these crimes, the crimes committed in Sinai, in Rafah, in El-Arish, in Khan Yunis, in Gaza, in Kuneitra and, above all, in the west bank.

45. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I call on the representative of Israel.

46. Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): The only reason why I have asked again for the right to make a brief observation is that it is a rare moment when I find myself in agreement with the representative of Jordan. I do agree with him that the road to peace is simple. It is a very simple road and Israel is ready to take it, to take it together with Jordan. We are still waiting for a sign that, in accordance with the Charter obligations of a Member State of the United Nations, Jordan is ready to walk on this path towards peace together with us-to meet, to discuss, to reach agreement on a peaceful settlement.

47. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I call on the representative of Jordan.

48. Mr. EL-FARRA (Jordan): I challenge Mr. Tekoah of Israel to come out before the Security Council, right here  and now, and say that Israel agrees to implement the resolution adopted unanimously by the Security Council on 22 November 1967 [242 (1967)]. I challenge him to come out right here and now and say that Israel accepts the resolution and its implementation.

____________

2/ See Official Records of the Security Council, Twenty-second

Year, Supplement for October, November and December 1967,

document S/8158.

49. As to the idea of negotiations: One never negotiates at the point of a gun. That is surrender. I think that the United States of America did not negotiate after Pearl Harbor. I think that Lord Caradon would agree with me that the United Kingdom did not negotiate after Dunkirk. I do not think that any European Power negotiated when Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe. They all resisted and they all worked for the liberation of their homeland from the invaders. But the condition precedent to any other move is withdrawal-immediate, complete and uncon-ditional withdrawal. That is to be preceded by the acceptance of the resolution and its implementation.

50. But to try to convey the impression that you are for peace when you are for aggression is so obvious a distortion that it needs no comment.

51. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I call on the representative of Israel.

52. Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): It is so much more constructive to be challenged on questions of peace than on questions of war, and therefore I should like immediately to respond to the question put to me by the representative of Jordan and to say that we do accept the goal of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967 to establish a just and lasting peace by agreement, together with Jordan. That is the basic provision, that is the basic aim of the resolution. We still await that kind of confirmation on the part of the Jordanian Government.

53. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I call on the representative of Jordan.

54. Mr. EL-FARRA (Jordan): Now, I want you, Mr. Presi-dent, and the other members who voted for the resolution adopted unanimously to clarify this. Did you adopt a goal, or is the goal in the Charter? Did you not adopt a resolution with specific paragraphs calling for specific deeds? The goal is in the Charter. If the statement we have just heard proves anything, it proves defiance, arrogance, complete ignorance. To come here and say that they accept the goal is to ignore completely the will of the Security Council. What is the goal? To score a point? The goal is the Charter, and the Charter does not need resolutions.

55. I repeat my question. Do the Israelis really and sincerely accept the Security Council resolution? What is more, do the Israelis, who defied the will of ninety-nine Members of the United Nations on the question of Jerusalem, accept that resolution of the General Assembly [2254(ES-V)] supported by ninety-nine Members, with the regrettable abstention of the United States and the understandable abstention of Israel? I again challenge the representative of Israel to tell this Council whether they would agree to implement a resolution on the question of Jerusalem adopted by ninety-nine votes in favor? What has been their answer to this question? What has been their answer with respect to the resolution? Their answer has beer: Jerusalem is not negotiable. These are facts, and facts are stubborn things; neither Mr. Tekoah nor any leader in the Israel Cabinet is in a position to cover up or hide them. They are glaring, they are all known and they cannot easily be distorted.

56. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I have just received a request from Mr. Baroody [S/8499], the Perma-nent Representative of Saudi Arabia, to be allowed to address the Council on this agenda item. As I hear no objection, I shall now call on Mr. Baroody.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. J. M. Baroody (Saudi Arabia) took a place at the Council table.

57. Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia): Thank you, Mr. Presi-dent, and my thanks go to the members of the Council for raising no objection to my request to take the floor.

58. I have listened very patiently to the debate since this question was placed before the Council. I did not intend to take the floor, but circumstances have made it necessary for me to set the record straight. Certain statements were judiciously made to divert the attention of the Council from the question placed before it. I am not going to repeat the substance of statements I made before the Council in several interventions during 1966 and 1967. To do so would indeed be to burden and encumber the Council's record with certain historical facts that speak for them-selves.

59. However, I have noticed that the question as presented by the representative of Israel makes it appear as if there is a problem to be resolved between Jordan and Israel. It is true that Jordan has paid a stiff price so far. A good part of its territory has been dismembered and occupied. But no one seems to have mentioned the Palestine people as a nation. I was fourteen years old in 1920 when Palestine- whose population happened to be 94 per cent Arab-was occupied by the British as the Mandatory Power. There was a Palestinian people, a separate national entity, just as there was a Lebanese people, just as there was an Iraqi people, just as there was an Egyptian people, or a Syrian people. In a dastardly manner they were all placed under mandate. I am not going into the history of the mandates now, nor into the Conference of Versailles.

60. I must say that there is a Palestinian people; part of them lived in Jordan. They had no choice but to adopt Jordanian nationality. But they were Palestinians and they are still Palestinians. There are Palestinians in Saudi Arabia, there are Palestinians in Syria, there are Palestinians in Lebanon, there are Palestinians in Egypt and there are Palestinians scattered all over the world. Why? Because they were sold down two rivers: the Thames and the Potomac.

61. I do not know if it was a mistake at that time for the Soviet Union to vote for partition. I must say this with anguish. I was present at the 1947 meetings on partition. Did anybody, did the representative of Israel take into account that there is a Palestinian nation and that self–determination and the sovereignty of a people reside in the people, and that you cannot take it away from them? Does the representative of Israel consider that, because many of them lived in camps-forcibly on seven cents a day-you can just erase their loyalty to their land? Ninety-four per cent were Palestinians. Forget that they were Arabs. They were a people like the people of Lebanon, like the people of Syria, like the people of Iraq, who were placed unjustly under European mandates. That was the time when secret me, agreements were concocted, and one would think that such a day was over. It is not over. That is what we are confronted with today. The Palestinian People has been sadly neglected in these deliberations and here I come to -the crux of the point in answer to what Mr. Tekoah has mentioned: that the Arab Governments have sown the seeds of hatred-perhaps I am paraphrasing-in the hearts of the Palestinians. If I may say so, he meant, I believe, the Palestinians. Nobody has to sow the seeds of hatred in the hearts of anyone if you take his home, if you take his land and if you take away his patrimony.

62. It was Israel, it was the Zionists who sowed the seeds of hatred in the hearts of the Palestinians, not the Arab Governments. No Arab Government dared, and let this be made clear. Time and again I mentioned it during my last statement. No Government would dare to say to the Palestinian people "Forget your land; come on, be good, we will take some of you here and some of you there.”

63. What right have the Arab Governments to tell the

Palestinian people, who consider themselves Palestinians, that they should go and live somewhere else? Why did not Europeans tell one another during the Second World War: it does not matter. Well, all right, part of the Czech people in the Sudeten area of Czechoslovakia were absorbed. So what? They had a Second World War that started Nazi in Germany.

64. We have heard of terrorists. They are Palestinian freedom fighters trying to regain their homeland. You cannot ask anyone to refrain from regaining his homeland. It does not depend on Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Egypt or Iraq or Lebanon or Syria. It depends on those people who are themselves in their majority the owners of the land.

65. We all know that Zionism is a European movement; it is not an oriental movement. Time and again I have said that the Semitic Jews are our brothers and we have never negated that. I am not going to go into the annals of history to prove how the Jews fared because they were our own people. We are Semites; the Arabs are Semites and the Jews are Semites. But this movement started in Europe. It is an incursion into the midst of the Arab homeland. It expropriated Palestine. The Bible says that the Jews will go back

there one day. Well, if we want to treat sacred books on an equal basis, there is no such thing in the Koran, and the -Koran is the Holy Book of 600 million people. Do you mean to say that the leaders of Israel are such fundamentalists in religion that they mean that Zion is a geographical entity-or rather that it is something of the spirit which is noble rather than a geographic occupation at the expense of others, As I have said time an again in past, who knows but that some of those Palestinian indigenous people may have been Jews and a have been proselytized or converted, or may have opted either for Christianity or for Islam. They are the indigenous people of the land. That is what we should bear in mind.

66. Around this Council table nobody mentions the Palestinian people, Why? They were under a mandate, they -were scattered. Should they be neglected, should they be ignored? Therefore, my last words are no exhortation on their part, because it seems that the United Nations– especially the Security Council during the last three or four become a body of consensus rather than one trying to find what is just.

67. You cannot compromise the Charter-peace with practice. Here in this host country if somebody violates the constitution or goes against it, there is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the conscience of this country. You cannot have a political solution when there is a people who are not represented here and could not be represented here because of the dastardly acts against them. The Palestinian people are not represented here. But when we are dragged to this matter as if to say that the Arab people and the

Arab States as such are having a dispute with Israel, in fact

it is the Palestinian people who have a dispute with Israel which usurped their land, which usurped their homeland? That is the Crux Of the question.

68. I remember 1947. I do not recall now what the exact vote was, but 2 or 3 votes were needed. And, as my colleague from Jordan mentioned, what pressure was not brought to bear to get those votes for the partition of Palestine. It played havoc with the people that lived there.

69. Do you think that if Jordan-or for that matter, Syria as has been alleged, the United Arab Republic-wanted to come to an agreement, the Palestinians in those countries, scattered as they are in the camps all over the Arab world, would remain docile and keep silent?

70. This is why time and again I have said that there will be no peace in Palestine. This saddens me, because in the United Nations we are all for peace. But when somebody in this Council, in this very Council, speaks of trying to exercise influence on this or that group of States, that means we are sabotaging the United Nations. The United Nations is predicated on transcending spheres of influence, power politics, special arrangements and bilateral or multi–lateral treaties that are not based on the Charter and its principles.

71. What are we in the Middle East? A piece of cloth to be pulled by two great Powers, each one exercising its influence? At least those who talk about influence give that impression, that it is a piece of cloth that is being pulled on the one side by one Power and on the other side another, and those Powers have their clients. If there is tear in the cloth, then each one darns that tear with his own thread. Those tears are the conflicts. There will be many tears, until no cloth is left.

72. Speaking humbly and from my own experience, I would not be surprised if that quarter of Asia, that Arab East-not Viet-Nam but

that Arab East-is the theatre of the third world war. Because the stakes are high. This is not a religious movement. It is motivated by religion, just as the Crusades were motivated by religion. But as we know now, the Crusades were really for economic reasons. We know that now; Schlumberger, the French historian of the Crusades, tells us that, and other historians too. The motivation was religious, but it was really to postpone nationalism in Europe. At that time the Church was both a religious and temporal power. And what happened? Do you know that-the Christians fought in the Arab East by the side of their bioth6rs? They did not consider that the Crusaders were Christians; they fought against them because the Crusades were an incursion into their midst. Then too, none other than our Ottoman brothers-who are also Moslems, though that is not the question-came in and occupied the Arab lands. It took some time. But where are the Ottomans today? And then came our European-I do not want to say brothers; cousins, because Europe is a projection of Asia-our European cousins, and they gerry-mandered the area into mandates. Our good friend Lord Caradon was in that Mandate; he was a magistrate there and I enjoyed talking Arabic once in a while there with him. Well, where are they now? Gone-not with the wind; with the Second World War.

73. And now, who comes in? The Zionists. If they were the Jews of our area there would be no problem. We lived side by side with them for, I think, more than 2,000 years, since they came down from Ur of the Chaldees. And when did Abraham come? Who can tell? Abraham preceded Moses from Iraq. But our problem is not with them; our problem is with that incursion from Eastern Europe. And who are those Jews? Most of them were converted to Judaism. In saying this I am citing the Jewish. Encyclo-paedia. I wish I could order it brought here, and I know where the page is, but the Library is too far from here. In the first century, some tribes came from Europe and occupied that area which we now call southern Russia. They were pagans. After the Diaspora-the representative of

Israel knows about the Diaspora, when the Romans destroyed the Temple-many Jews found their way to what we call today the Balkans. Then, about the seventh or eighth century, during the age of religious intolerance, there were Christians and there were Moslems in that area, after the Moslem religion spread into the North. Those tribes were converted to Judaism-because neither the Moslems nor the Christians wanted them to embrace either religion-so as to maintain the balance of power. I am not going to go into details, but this is how they became Jews.

74. So then, this is an incursion from Europe,, just as in the case of the Crusaders or the case of the Mandatory Powers, and the Palestinian people-and again I say, forget that they are Arabs-are the victims. And yet they are called terrorists. You are equating them with terrorists in all kinds of draft resolutions here. Is it not a shame even to think that anyone who tries to regain his land is a terrorist? Why are people not called terrorists in Europe when they try to regain their land? Is it because they are Arabs that you call them terrorists?

75. No, this double standard cannot go on in the United Nations, lest the United Nations founder like the League of Nations before it. I observed the League of Nations in Western Europe during its existence, and that is why it foundered-a double standard.

76. No, you cannot do this to the Palestinian people by any arrangement made in the United Nations or elsewhere. You cannot confront Jordan with any such arrangement, a State that has valiantly fought for its survival. You cannot try to make the Syrians bow their heads. The Syrians are also mentioned in the Bible. You cannot do that to any Syria and Israel. If this is indeed the case, then I wonder what purpose would be served by our suspending tonight for an hour when we must resume our meeting tomorrow to hear the representatives who have requested to speak.

74. The PRESIDENT (translated front French): Since there is an objection to the one-hour suspension which had been requested, I shall now put before the Council the second suggestion that was made to me-namely, to adjourn this meeting until 11.30 tomorrow morning.

75. Mr. BOUATTOURA (Algeria) (translated from French): You have made a proposal, Mr. President, and if I understood correctly, the representative of the United States did not express a specific objection to the suspension of the meeting. My delegation feels, in view of the gravity of the situation, that consultations lasting one hour, even if they did not permit us to reach a conclusion, could at all events enable the Council to make worthwhile progress in its work. I have just been informed, moreover, that two of the three speakers mentioned by the representative of the United States would not insist on speaking. Therefore, in so far as the Council wishes to show itself equal to its responsibilities-and I am convinced that such is the feeling of all members of the Council- my delegation would gladly accept the first alternative Which You put before the Council, namely to suspend the meeting for one hour.

76. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I should like to put a question to the representative of the United States. Since the representative of Algeria considers that his objection was not a specific one, I should like to ask him whether he is prepared to withdraw it.

77. Mr. GOLDBERG (United States of America): Having "non-objected", I have really nothing to withdraw. I have no objection, as I said, to consulting, at any time if it will forward the work of the Council. I had assumed that those who made the proposal were not aware, as I was, that there was a speakers' list for tomorrow. If it is the desire of the Council to recess now for consultations for an hour, or for any other period of time, I shall be here for those consultations.

78. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): Since there is no further objection to the first proposal, I shall now suspend the meeting for one hour.

The meeting was suspended at 11 p.m.; it was resumed on Friday, 22 March, at 12.35 a.m.

79. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I have no further speakers on my list. In accordance with consul-tations we have held and if there is no objection, I propose that we adjourn the debate now and resume it at 12 noon today.

The meeting rose on Friday, 22 March, at 12.40 a.m.