Distr.
GENERAL
S/10070
4 January 1971
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
REPORT BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON THE ACTIVITIES
OF THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE MIDDLE EAST
INTRODUCTION
1. On 22 November 1967, the Security Council adopted resolution 242 (1967), which reads as follows:
"The Security Council,
"Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East.
"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
"Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
"1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
"2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
"3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special
Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
"4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible."
2. On 23 November 1967 I reported to the Council (S/8259) that I had invited Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring of Sweden to accept the designation as the Special Representative mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Council's above-mentioned resolution. Ambassador Jarring accepted this designation and arrived at United Nations Headquarters on 26 November, where he entered into consultation with the representatives of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Republic (Syria, the other State concerned, did not at that stage or later accept the Security Council resolution). After those consultations with the parties, Ambassador Jarring established the headquarters of the United Nations Middle East Mission in Cyprus.
3. In reports dated 22 December 1967, 17 January 1968, 29 March 1968, 29 July 1968 and 3 December 1968 (S/8309 and Add.1 to 4, respectively), I reported to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of Ambassador Jarring. On 7 August 1970, I was able to inform the Security Council (S/9902) that Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic had agreed to take part in discussions under Ambassador Jarring's auspices for the purpose of reaching agreement on a just and lasting peace between them. Unfortunately and for well known reasons those discussions were interrupted immediately after they began. The Members of the Security Council will have been able to observe that in the last few days it has become possible to arrange for the resumption of the discussions. I hope that these resumed discussions will be fruitful. However, it seems appropriate at this time to provide the Security Council with a somewhat fuller account of the activities of the Special Representative than heretofore.
I. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE DURING
THE PERIOD 9 DECEMBER 1967 TO 26 NOVEMBER 1968
4. When the Special Representative first met with the parties in December 1967, he found that the Israeli Government was of the firm view that a settlement of the Middle East question could be reached only through direct negotiations between the parties culminating in a peace treaty and that there could be no question of withdrawal of their forces prior to such a settlement. On 27 December, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel, Mr. Abba Eban, communicated to the Special Representative a proposal that Israel and the United Arab Republic representatives should, as a first step, discuss an agenda for peace. The Israeli proposals for such an agenda were:
"1. Political and juridical problems: The replacement of cease-fire arrangements by peace treaties ending the state of belligerency, ending all hostile acts and threats and embodying a permanent undertaking of mutual non-aggression.
"2. Territorial and security problems: The determination of agreed territorial boundaries and security arrangements. Agreement on this measure would determine the deployment of armed forces after the cease-fire.
"3. Navigation problems: Practical methods should be discussed for ensuring free navigation for all states including Israel in the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba when the cease-fire is replaced by peace. In the light of tragic experience, it is evident that international declarations cannot by themselves solve this problem. Concrete measures and guarantees are required.
"4. Economic problems: Proposals for terminating boycott practices and instituting normal economic relations."
5. The United Arab Republic and Jordan, for their part, insisted that there could be no question of discussions between the parties until the Israeli forces had been withdrawn to the positions occupied by them prior to 5 June 1967. Reacting specifically to the Israeli proposals for discussing an agenda for peace, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic, Mr. Mahmoud Riad, stated that the withdrawal of Israel's forces to the positions held prior to June 1967 was a basic and preliminary step to a peaceful settlement in the
Middle East.
6. An Israeli proposal for discussions on an agenda for peace with Jordan was submitted to the Special Representative on 7 January 1968. It followed the same general lines as the proposal for the United Arab Republic but contained more detailed suggestions for economic co-operation, as well as the following
new topics:
"Humanitarian problems: In the proposed negotiation, high priority should be given to a solution of the refugee problem with international and regional co-operation.
"Religious and historical sites: Access to sites of special religious significance should be discussed. The Government of Israel clarified its views on this subject in several verbal and written communications to the United Nations."
It was also stated:
"In the meantime, it is urgent that breaches of the cease-fire and activities by El Fatah and other such organizations should be suppressed and every effort made on both sides to avoid exchanges of fire."
7. The proposals, when communicated to the Jordanian authorities by the Special Representative, were objected to in the same way as the proposals to the United Arab Republic had been.
8. Faced with these conflicting positions, the Special Representative sought to obtain from the parties an assurance that they would implement Security Council resolution 242 (1967), in the hope that such a declaration would be regarded as a basis for subsequent discussions between the parties. The Special
Representative received from Foreign Minister Eban a number of formulations of Israel's position on the Security Council resolution, of which the last, dated 19 February 1968, read as follows:
"1. The Government of Israel, out of respect for the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 and responding affirmatively thereto, assures you of its full co-operation in your efforts with the States concerned to promote agreement and to achieve an accepted settlement for the establishment of a just and lasting peace, in accordance with your mandate under the resolution.
"2. Israel's position has throughout been that the best way to achieve the objective of the Security Council resolution is through direct negotiations. However, as a further indication of Israel's co-operation, we are willing that this be done in a meeting convened by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General.
"3. On 12 February 1968, I informed you of Israel's acceptance of the Security Council's call in its resolution of 22 November 1967 for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of peace. The United Arab Republic is also aware of Israel's willingness as explained on 1 February to negotiate on all matters included in the Security Council's resolution. We accept the sponsor's view that the principles recommended for inclusion in the peace settlement are integrally linked and interdependent.
"4. We have noted the United Arab Republic's willingness to `implement' the Security Council's resolution and fulfil its obligations thereunder. It is a matter of concern that the United Arab Republic statements, unlike those of Israel, do not specifically use the precise terms of the resolution in such crucial matters as `agreement' and the `establishment of a just and lasting peace', and that the United Arab Republic has not yet agreed to a process of negotiation without which, of course a declaration of willingness to fulfil the resolution is of no substantive effect. The resolution is a framework for agreement. It cannot be fulfilled without a direct exchange of views and proposals leading to bilateral contractual commitments. The United Arab Republic position is, therefore, still deficient in important respects. We are, however, conscious of the importance of the fact that the United Arab Republic and Israel have both responded affirmatively to the call for co-operating with you in the mission laid upon you by the Security Council. At the same time, it would be unrealistic to ignore that there have been sharp differences of interpretation of what the resolution entails. To subscribe to similar declarations does not of itself solve practical issues at stake.
"5. It is accordingly urgent to move forward to a more substantive stage and to embark on a meaningful negotiation for achieving the just and lasting peace called for by the Security Council."
In discussions with the Special Representative, Foreign Minister Eban stated that Israel would not object to an indirect approach to negotiations provided that it was designed to lead to a later stage of direct negotiations and agreement.
9. The United Arab Republic Foreign Minister gave repeated assurances that the United Arab Republic was ready to implement the Security Council resolution as a whole and to fulfil its obligations under it, but stated that it would not accept direct negotiations. The United Arab Republic accepted indirect negotiations; however, the first step must be an Israeli declaration "in clear language" that it would implement the Security Council resolution.
10. The Jordanian authorities expressed a similar point of view to the Special Representative.
11. The Special Representative then proceeded to United Nations Headquarters for consultations with the Secretary-General. Returning to the area at the beginning of March, he informally presented to the parties, to ascertain their reactions, a draft letter from himself to the Secretary-General, which would be worded as follows:
"The two Governments have expressed their willingness to co-operate with me in my capacity as Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the discharge of my tasks of promoting agreement and achieving such a settlement.
12. When Ambassador Jarring presented this text to the United Arab Republic Foreign Minister on 7 March 1968, the latter stated that recent statements by Israeli leaders showed that they were following an expansionist line. It was no longer sufficient to have Israel give an assurance of intent to implement the resolution; the Arabs had to be satisfied that the Israelis were going to "implement it for action". If the Israelis withdrew completely from the occupied territories, peace could be arrived at by the implementation of the other provisions of the Security Council resolution under the Council's guidance.
13. In a meeting on 10 March, the Special Representative informed the Israeli Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic attitude. He then informally showed his draft letter to the Foreign Minister, who expressed the personal view that it would be fully acceptable to the Israeli authorities if it was also accepted by the other side and led to contacts between them. Subsequently the Special Representative was informed of Israel's official acceptance, without conditions, of the text.
14. In a meeting on 14 March, the Jordanian authorities stated that they were ready to accept the proposed meeting in principle provided that the text was modified to read that the parties had "declared their readiness to implement the resolution".
15. During the following weeks, Ambassador Jarring paid repeated visits to the countries concerned in an endeavour to obtain from the Israelis a more precise formulation of their acceptance of the resolution and from the two Arab States acceptance of the idea of meetings between the parties under his auspices.
16. At a meeting in Amman on 16 April 1968, the Jordanian authorities stated that they were prepared to accept the text of the Special Representative's draft letter provided that the third paragraph was amended to read as follows:
The acceptance was based on the assumption that the United Arab Republic would accept an identical text.
The United Arab Republic Foreign Minister repeated that the United Arab Republic was ready to implement the resolution as a whole and as a "package deal". It insisted, however, that Israel should do likewise, including complete withdrawal.
19. Ambassador Jarring was faced with a position wherh containing the actual invitation. Further journeying backwards and forwards between the various countries was unlikely to be productive. In consultations with me, he considered issuing a formal invitation along the lines of his proposal, but with the venue at New York, but it was felt that a forced acceptance obtained by such an invitation would not be helpful. Instead it was decided that the talks in New York should begin without a formal invitation by the Special Representative or a letter from the Special Representative to the Secretary-General but on the basis of a short statement to the press in which it would be announced that the Special Representative was arriving in New York for consultations in continuation of his mission.
20. During his stay in the area, the Special Representative visited Beirut on three occasions. The Lebanese Government expressed its full support for a solution according to Security Council resolution 242 (1967). Lebanon, however, had no territory under occupation and therefore did not have the same detailed involvement in the settlement as the United Arab Republic and Jordan. The Special Representative did not visit Syria, whose Government, as noted above, had not accepted the Security Council resolution.
21. Ambassador Jarring left the area on 10 May 1968 and arrived at Headquarters on 15 May 1968.
22. In the five weeks following his arrival at New York, Ambassador Jarring pursued actively his contacts with the permanent representatives of the parties at both a formal and informal level. Unfortunately these contacts did not serve in any way to break the dead-lock between the parties concerning the interpretation of the Security Council resolution and the manner in which it should be implemented. In that regard, the Permanent Representative of Israel had stated in the Security Council on 1 May 1968:
This statement was not regarded as acceptable by the Arab representatives.
23. Returning to New York on 22 July after a short stay in Europe during which he had met in various capitals the Foreign Ministers of the United Arab Republic, Israel and Jordan, Ambassador Jarring decided, with my approval, to return to the Middle East and resume his direct contacts with the parties. This second round of discussions, which began on 16 August 1968, took the form of an exchange of questions and of comments between the parties through the Special Representative. Some progress in the clarification of the respective positions of the parties had been made when the opening of the twenty-third session of the General Assembly caused the venue of the discussions to be transferred to New York, where they could be carried out with greater convenience. With the arrival of the foreign ministers of the parties for the session toward the end of September, Ambassador Jarring began a series of frequent meetings with them
individually, which were at first mainly of an informal nature but which, following the delivery by the foreign ministers of their speeches in the general debate, assumed a more formal character and concluded with written communications from the Foreign Ministers of Israel and of the United Arab Republic restating the positions of their respective Governments. Those written statements were in amplification of the positions of the parties as publicly stated in the General Assembly and made clear the essential differences between them. On the one hand, Israel regarded the Security Council resolution as a statement of principles in the light of which the parties should negotiate peace and, on the other hand, the United Arab Republic considered that the resolution provided a plan for settlement of the Middle East dispute to be implemented by the parties according to modalities to be established by the Special Representative. It
was also abundantly clear that there was a crucial difference of opinion over the meaning to be attached to the withdrawal provisions of the Security Council resolution, which according to the Arab States applied to all territories occupied since 5 June 1967 and according to Israel applied only to the extent required when agreement had been reached between the parties on secure and recognized borders between them.
24. Discouraging though the prospects seemed, Ambassador Jarring decided to carry out another brief round of discussions in the Middle East. As he explained in a letter to me, dated 26 November 1968, he had in mind inviting the parties to a new round of discussions in the middle of January 1969 in order to give them time for reflection and for careful consideration of their respective positions.1
II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
FROM 27 NOVEMBER 1968 TO JUNE 1970
25. Ambassador Jarring departed from Headquarters on 27 November 1968 and met with representatives of Israel in Nicosia on 2 and 3 December, of the United Arab Republic in Cairo on 4 December and of Jordan in Amman on 7 December. Unfortunately, these meetings did not reveal a change of position in the attitude of the parties that would have made it expedient for Ambassador Jarring to convene a meeting of the parties in the middle of January 1969, as envisaged in his letter of 26 November 1968.
26. After resuming for a time his duties as Ambassador of Sweden to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Ambassador Jarring returned to Headquarters on 29 January 1969. He there undertook a series of personal contacts with the Permanent Representatives of the parties and the representatives of other Member States.
27. At that stage, Ambassador Jarring concluded, with my concurrence, that the best contribution which he could make to breaking the existing deadlock was to make a further tour of the Middle East in which he would submit formally to the parties a series of questions designed to elicit their attitude towards Security Council resolution 242 (1967). He accordingly left New York on 21 February 1969 for the Middle East. At meetings with the Foreign Ministers of the United Arab Republic on 5 March, of Jordan on 8 March, of Israel on 9 March and of Lebanon on 14 March, he submitted the questions which he had previously prepared. The replies of the parties were received by Ambassador Jarring as follows:
Israel: handed to Ambassador Jarring in Jerusalem by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 2 April 1969.
Jordan: received by Ambassador Jarring in Nicosia on 24 March 1969.
Lebanon: received by Ambassador Jarring in Moscow on 21 April 1969.
United Arab Republic: handed to Ambassador Jarring in Cairo by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic on 27 March 1969.
The questions and replies are reproduced in annex I.
28. It had been the hope of Ambassador Jarring, in submitting his questions, that the replies might show certain encouraging features which might make it possible to invite the parties for a series of meetings between them and him at some mutually convenient place. Unfortunately, the replies were in general a repetition of attitudes already expressed to Ambassador Jarring on numerous occasions from the beginning of his mission. They showed continued serious divergencies between the Arab States and Israel both as regards the interpretation to be given to the Security Council resolution and as to the procedures for putting its provisions into effect.
29. Ambassador Jarring was regretfully forced to conclude, with my agreement, that the conditions for convening a useful series of meetings at that time did not exist and that there was no further move which he could usefully make at that stage. He therefore returned on 5 April 1969 to Moscow, where he resumed his duties as Ambassador of Sweden to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
30. Ambassador Jarring continued to keep in close touch with me and with representatives of the parties and of other interested States.
31. Ambassador Jarring returned to Headquarters from 12 September to 8 October 1969 and from 10 to 26 March 1970, but found no new elements which would permit him to organize active discussions with the parties. On each occasion he returned to his post in Moscow.
32. On 3 April 1969, the Permanent Representatives of France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America began a series of meetings on the Middle East question, which have continued at various intervals up to the present time. After each such meeting, the Chairman reported to me on the substance of the discussions and I kept Ambassador Jarring informed.
III. THE ATTEMPT TO HOLD DISCUSSIONS UNDER
THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE'S AUSPICES
(JUNE 1970-4 JANUARY 1971)
33. In June 1970, the Government of the United States of America proposed to the Governments of Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic that they should each advise Ambassador Jarring as follows:
(a) that having accepted and indicated their willingness to carry out resolution 242 in all its parts, they will designate representatives to discussions to be held under his auspices, according to such procedure and at such places and times as he may recommend, taking into account as appropriate each side's
preference as to method of procedure and previous experience between the parties;
(b) that the purpose of the aforementioned discussions is to reach agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace between them based on (1) mutual acknowledgement by the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Israel of each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence, and (2) Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, both in accordance with resolution 242;
(c) that, to facilitate his task of promoting agreement as set forth in resolution 242, the parties will strictly observe, effective 1 July at least until 1 October, the cease-fire resolutions of the Security Council.
34. Having been informed by the United States Government that the States concerned had accepted its peace initiative, I invited Ambassador Jarring to return immediately to Headquarters, where he arrived on 2 August. I informed the Security Council in a note dated 7 August (S/9902) that Ambassador Jarring had received confirmation from the Permanent Representatives of those States of their acceptance and that he had addressed to me a letter as described above. I was informed by the United States representative that his Government had received the acceptance of the Governments of the United Arab Republic and Israel to a standstill cease-fire for a period of ninety days from 2200 GMT on the same day. Ambassador Jarring and I had previously been informed by Secretary of State Rogers that his Government would take responsibility for organizing the standstill cease-fire.
35. Ambassador Jarring at once entered into contact with the parties and, after considering their views on the time and place of the discussions, on 21 August 1970 addressed to them invitations to take part in discussions opening at New York on 25 August 1970. He met on the appointed day with representatives of each of the parties. However Ambassador Tekoah, who had been designated by Israel as its representative for the initial phase of the talks, then stated that he had been instructed by his Government to return to Israel for consultations. On his return on 8 September, he communicated to Ambassador Jarring the following decision of his Government:
The Special Representative thus found himself precluded for the time being from holding formal meetings with the Israeli representatives, and his talks with the representatives of the Arab States, though they continued, could not be productive because of the lack of contact with the Israeli representative. After a brief visit to Moscow from 6 to 14 October to attend to his affairs as Ambassador of Sweden there, the Special Representative returned to New York and had a wide range of contacts with representatives of the parties and of other Member States during the commemorative session of the General Assembly and the debate on the Middle East, which followed that session.
36. Immediately following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2628 (XXV), Ambassador Jarring entered into contact with the representatives of the parties in order to invite them to re-enter into talks under his auspices for the purpose of reaching agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. The representatives of Jordan and the United Arab Republic informed him that their Governments continued to be willing to do so; the representative of Israel stated that the matter was under consideration in the Israeli Cabinet.
37. On 19 November and pending a decision by the Israeli Cabinet, Ambassador Jarring returned to Moscow. On the eve of his departure, he addressed a letter to the Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs, in which he formally invited the Israeli Government to resume its participation in the discussions, as well as letters to the Permanent Representatives of Jordan and the United Arab Republic, in which he took note of the position of their Governments. These letters, together with replies from the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Republic and the Israeli Foreign Minister, are reproduced in annex II.
38. On 30 December, Ambassador Jarring received in Moscow a message from the Foreign Minister of Israel in which the latter informed him of the readiness of the Government of Israel to resume its participation in the talks. The message is also reproduced in annex II.
Annex I
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED IN MARCH 1969 BY THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE GOVERNMENTS CONCERNED AND THEIR REPLIES
Note: Ambassador Jarring submitted his questions to the States concerned in the form of separate lists specifically addressed to each Government. Those lists were, however, prepared from a general list applicable to all the parties and that list is, to save repetition, reproduced here. As some questions related to provisions of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) which applied to only one or some of the parties, the numbers of questions in the specific lists were not always the same as those in the general list. Where the number of the answer differs from that of the question in the general list, the latter number is added in square brackets.
Specific lists of questions based on the following general list were submitted by Ambassador Jarring to the Governments of the United Arab Republic on 5 March, of Jordan on 8 March, of Israel on 9 March and of Lebanon on 14 March 1969.
A. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
Security Council resolution 242 (1967) sets out provisions and principles in accordance with which a peaceful and accepted settlement of the Middle East Question should be achieved. Some of these provisions would impose obligations on both sides, some on one side, and some on the other. It has generally been accepted that they should be regarded as a whole. The following questions designed to elicit the attitude of the parties towards the provisions of the Security Council resolution are based on this assumption and are to be understood in the context that each provision is regarded as part of a "package deal".
1. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) accept Security Council resolution 242 (1967) for implementation for achieving a peaceful and accepted settlement of the Middle East Question in accordance with the provisions and principles contained in the resolution?
2. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) agree to pledge termination of all claims or states of belligerency with
Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Republic (Israel)?
3. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) agree to pledge respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Republic (Israel)?
4. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) accept the right of Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Republic (Israel) to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force?
5. If so, what is the conception of secure and recognized boundaries held by Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic)?
6. Does Israel agree to withdraw its armed forces from territories occupied by it in the recent conflict?
7. Does the United Arab Republic agree to guarantee freedom of navigation for Israel through international waterways in the area, in particular:
(a) through the Straits of Tiran, and
(b) through the Suez Canal?
8. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) agree that, if a plan for the just settlement of the refugee problem is worked out and presented to the parties for their consideration, the acceptance in principle of such a plan by the parties and the declaration of their intention to implement it in good faith constitute sufficient implementation of this provision of the Security Council resolution to justify the implementation of the other provisions?
9. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) agree that the territorial inviolability and political independence of the States in the area should be guaranteed:
(a) by the establishment of demilitarized zones;
(b) through additional measures?
10. Does Israel agree that such demilitarized zones should include areas on its side of its boundaries?
11. Does Jordan agree that a demilitarized zone should be established in Jordanian territory from which Israel armed forces have been withdrawn?
12. Does the United Arab Republic agree that a demilitarized zone should be established:
(a) at Sharm-el-Sheikh;
(b) in other parts of the Sinai peninsula?
13. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) agree that demilitarization of such zones should be supervised and maintained by the United Nations?
14. Would Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) accept as a final act of agreement on all provisions a mutually signed multilateral document which would incorporate the agreed conditions for a just and lasting peace?
B. REPLY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL
(Handed to Ambassador Jarring in Jerusalem by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 2 April 1969)
Jerusalem, 2 April 1969
Dear Ambassador Jarring,
Israel's position on all the subjects raised in your eleven questions has been stated in detail in my address to the General Assembly of 8 October 1968, and in the memoranda presented to you on 15 October 1968 and 4 November 1968.
I now enclose specific replies in an affirmative spirit to the questions as formulated. It is my understanding that on the basis of the answers received from the three governments you propose to pursue further mutual clarifications in an effort to promote agreement on all the matters at issue in accordance with your mandate. We are ready to join in this process at any appropriate place.
Israel's statements of attitude, including her replies to these questions, has taken into account recent developments in Arab policy including the speeches recently delivered by President Nasser and other Arab leaders. We have noted the specific and emphatic reiteration of their refusal to make peace with Israel, to recognize Israel, to negotiate with Israel, to cease terrorist attacks on Israel or to admit the possibility of sovereign co-existence in any field. It would appear at this time that the effective negation by the UAR of the principles of the Charter and of the Security Council's Resolution is obvious and vehement. We hope that this policy, to which effect is given every day, will change; but these authoritative statements have caused deep concern and have intensified the tension which we would have wished to see relieved.
It is also our view that highly publicized encounters by four member States have weakened the attention which should have been concentrated on the efforts of the parties themselves to move towards agreement. They are causing a duplication and dispersal of effort. They have also encouraged a wrong impression in some quarters that a solution can be sought outside the region and without its governments. Israel recognizes your mission as the authoritative international framework within which peace between the States in the Middle East should be promoted.
I recall the idea which we discussed some weeks ago that the Foreign Ministers of the three governments should meet with you soon at a suitable place to pursue the promotion of agreement. As you will remember, I reacted positively to this idea. I wish to reaffirm that Israel will continue to co-operate with you in the fulfilment of your mission.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) Abba EBAN
Answer to Question One:
Israel accepts the Security Council resolution (242) for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace, to be reached by negotiation and agreements between the governments concerned. Implementation of agreements should begin when agreement has been concluded on all their provisions.
Answer to Question Two:
It is the Arab States, not Israel which claimed and originated states of belligerency. They declared themselves for two decades to be in a state of unilateral war with Israel. It is therefore primarily incumbent upon them to terminate the state of war with Israel.
On the establishment of peace with her Arab neighbours, Israel agrees to the termination, on a reciprocal basis, of all claims or states of belligerency with each State with which peace is established. A declaration specifying each State by name would be made by Israel in each case.
The corresponding statement by any Arab State must specifically renounce belligerency "with Israel" and not "with any state in the area". Legal obligations must be specific in regard to those by whom they are bound.
Renunciation of belligerency includes the cessation of all maritime interference, the cessation of boycott measures involving third parties; the annulment of reservations made by Arab States on the applicability to Israel of their obligations under international conventions to which they have adhered; non-adherence to political and military alliances and pacts directed against Israel or including States unwilling to renounce claims or states of belligerency with Israel and maintain peaceful relations with it; the non-stationing of armed forces of such other States on the territory of the contracting States and the prohibition and prevention in the territory of Arab States of all preparations, actions or expeditions by irregular or para-military groups or by individuals directed against the lives, security or property of Israel in any part of the world.
The last stipulation is without prejudice to the fact that the responsibility of Arab governments for preventing such activities is legally binding under the cease-fire established by the parties in June 1967.
Answer to Question Three:
Israel agrees to respect and acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of neighbouring Arab States; this principle would be embodied in peace treaties establishing agreed boundaries.
Answer to Question Four:
Israel accepts the right of Jordan, Lebanon, the United Arab Republic and other neighbouring States to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force. Explicit and unequivocal reciprocity is Israel's only conditions for this acceptance. "Acts of force" include all preparations, actions or expeditions by irregular or para-military groups or by individuals directed against the life, security or property of Israel in any part of the world.
Answer to Question Five:
Secure and recognized boundaries have never yet existed between Israel and the Arab States; accordingly, they should now be established as part of the peace-making process. The cease-fire should be replaced by peace treaties establishing permanent, secure and recognized boundaries as agreed upon through negotiation between the governments concerned.
Answer to Question Six:
When permanent, secure and recognized boundaries are agreed upon and established between Israel and each of the neighbouring Arab States, the disposition of forces will be carried out in full accordance with the boundaries determined in the peace treaties.
Answer to Question Seven: [general question 8]
The refugee problem was caused by the wars launched against Israel by Arab States, and has been perpetuated through the refusal of Arab States to establish peaceful relations with Israel. In view of the human problems involved in this issue Israel has expressed its willingness to give priority to the attainment of an agreement for the solution of this problem through regional and international co-operation. We believe that agreement could be sought even in advance of peace negotiations. We suggest that a conference of Middle Eastern States should be convened, together with the Governments contribution to refugee relief and the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, in order to chart a five-year plan for the solution of the refugee problem in the framework of a lasting peace and the integration of refugees into productive life. This conference can be
called in advance of peace negotiations.
Joint refugee integration and rehabilitation commissions should be established by the governments concerned in order to work out agreed projects for refugee integration on a regional basis with international assistance.
In view of the special humanitarian nature of this issue we do not make agreement on plans for a solution of the refugee problem contingent on agreement on any other aspect of the Middle Eastern problem. For the same reason it should not be invoked by Arab States to obstruct agreement on other problems.
Answer to Question Eight: [general question 9]
The effective guarantee for the territorial inviolability and political independence of States lies in the strict observance by the governments of their treaty obligations. In the context of peace providing for full respect for the sovereignty of States and the establishment of agreed boundaries, other security measures may be discussed by the contracting governments.
Answer to Questions Nine and Ten: [general questions 10 and 13]
Without prejudice to what is stated in answer to Question Eight, it is pointed out that experience has shown that the measures mentioned in Questions Nine and Ten have not prevented the preparation and carrying out of aggression against Israel.
Answer to Question Eleven: [general question 14]
Peace must be juridically expressed, contractually defined and reciprocally binding in accordance with established norms of international law and practice. Accordingly, Israel's position is that the peace should be embodied in bilateral peace treaties between Israel and each Arab State incorporating all the agreed conditions for a just and lasting peace. The treaties, once signed and ratified, should be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter.
2 April 1969
C. REPLY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF JORDAN
(Received by Ambassador Jarring in Nicosia on 24 March 1969)
23 March 1969
Your Excellency,
Following are the answers of my Government to the questions which you presented to us in Amman, on Saturday, 8 March 1969. The answers as numbered, hereunder, correspond to your questions.
These answers explain my Government's position, which position has repeatedly been stated to Your Excellency throughout our past meetings.
May I take this opportunity to express to you my continued sincere wishes for your success in the important mission with which you are entrusted.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) Abdul Monem RIFA'I
Minister of Foreign Affairs
His Excellency,
Ambassador Gunnar Jarring
Special Representative to
The Secretary-General of
The United Nations.
Answer (1)
Jordan, as it has declared before, accepts the Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and is ready to implement it in order to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles contained in the resolution.
Answer (2)
Jordan agrees to pledge termination of all claims or states of belligerency. Such a pledge becomes effective upon withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories which Israel occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June 1967.
A pledge by Israel to terminate the state of belligerency would be meaningful only when Israel withdraws its forces from all Arab territories it occupied since 5 June 1967.
Answer (3)
On 5 June 1967 Israel launched its aggression against three Arab States, violating their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Agreement to pledge respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area requires the termination by Israel of its occupation and the withdrawal of its forces from all the Arab territories it occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June.
Answer (4)
Jordan accepts the right of every State in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force, provided that Israel withdraws its forces from all Arab territories it occupied since 5 June 1967, and implements the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967.
Answer (5)
When the question of Palestine was brought before the United Nations in 1947, the General Assembly adopted its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 for the partition of Palestine and defined Israel's boundaries.
Answer (6) [general question 8]
It has always been our position that the just settlement of the refugee problem is embodied in paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution 194 of December 1948 which has been repeatedly reaffirmed by each and every General Assembly session ever since its adoption.
If a plan on the basis of that paragraph is presented for consideration to the parties concerned, its acceptance by the parties and the declaration of their intention to implement it in good faith, with adequate guarantees for its full implementation, would justify the implementation of the other provisions of the resolution.
Answer (7) (8) [general questions 9 and 11]
We do not believe that the establishment of demilitarized zones is a necessity. However, Jordan shall not oppose the establishment of such zones if they are astride the boundaries.
Answer (9) [general question 13]
In case demilitarized zones are established Jordan accepts that such zones be supervised and maintained by the United Nations.
Answer (10) [general question 14]
In view of our past experience with Israel and her denunciation of four agreements signed by her with Arab States we consider that the instrument to be signed by Jordan engaging her to carry out her obligations, would be addressed to the Security Council. Israel would likewise sign and address to the Security Council an instrument engaging her to carry out her obligations emanating from the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967. The endorsement by the Security Council of these documents would constitute the final multilateral act of agreement.
D. REPLY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF LEBANON
(Received by Ambassador Jarring in Moscow on 21 April 1969)
[Translated from French]
…
In reply to the questionnaire which Your Excellency addressed to me on 14 March 1969, I have the honour, on behalf of the Lebanese Government, to inform you of the following:
Lebanon is essentially involved in the general context of the Israeli-Arab conflict – and, therefore, in the consequences of the war launched by Israel on 5 June 1967 – because of its brotherly solidarity with the Arab States and of the threats which are constantly directed at it by Israel.
Lebanon is justified in considering, however, that the armistice agreement which it concluded with Israel on 23 March 1949 remains valid, as indicated in its message of 10 June 1967 to the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission and as confirmed by U Thant, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his report to the General Assembly of 19 September 1967. In that report, Mr. Thant, referring to the actual text of the agreement, said that it could be revised or suspended only by mutual consent. In view of Lebanon's circumstances, now and in the past, the armistice lines have, of course, never been changed. These lines, it should be noted, correspond to the frontiers of Lebanon which have always been internationally recognized in bilateral and multilateral diplomatic instruments as well as by the League of Nations and the United Nations. Lebanon participated
actively in the drafting of the United Nations Charter and was admitted in its present form and structure to membership in the Organization. Its frontiers have not undergone any de facto or de jure alteration as a result of the cease-fire decisions taken by the Security Council after 5 June 1967.
It may be appropriate to state the above-mentioned facts, more particularly with a view to explaining the nature and character of the only reply which we are in a position to give to the questionnaire sent to us by Your Excellency on 14 March 1969.
In this reply, which reflects the position taken by Lebanon at inter-Arab conferences, we proclaim Lebanon's support of the position of the Arab States whose territory has been occupied by Israel and which have accepted the Security Council's decision of 22 November 1967.
The present note is consistent with the spirit of the talks which you have already held with various Lebanese officials.
Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed) Yousset SALEM
Minister for Foreign Affairs
E. REPLY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
(Handed to Ambassador Jarring in Cairo by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic on 27 March 1969)
The memorandum handed to you on 5 March 1969 during your recent visit to Cairo clearly expresses the realities of the present situation. In its items 1 to 7, the memorandum gives a clear restatement of the position of the United Arab Republic which is based on the acceptance of the Security Council resolution 242 of 22 November 1967, and its readiness to carry out the obligations emanating therefrom.
The memorandum also clearly expounds Israel's persistence in rejecting the Security Council resolution and its refusal to carry out its obligations emanating from it as well as Israel's plans for annexation of Arab lands through war; a policy not only prohibited by the Charter of the United Nations but also violates the Security Council resolution which specifically emphasizes the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war. It has become obvious that Israel, in its endeavour to realize its expansionist aims, is no longer satisfied with the actual rejection of the Security Council resolution but actively works against it.
The same memorandum also states Israel's expansion plan as revealed by the quoted statements of Israeli leaders. This plan aims at:
1. Annexation of Jerusalem;
2. Keeping the Syrian Heights under its occupation;
3. Occupation of the West Bank in Jordan and its complete domination, practically terminating Jordan's sovereignty in that part;
4. Economic and administrative integration of the Gaza strip into Israel and the systematic eviction of its inhabitants;
5. Occupation of Sharm El-Sheikh and the Gulf of Aqaba area as well as the continued military presence in eastern part of Sinai;
6. The establishment of Israeli settlements in occupied territories.
This Israeli position constitutes a flagrant violation and clear rejection of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967 and of the peaceful settlement for which it provides.
In the light of these undeniable facts, I find it incumbent upon me to state categorically, at the outset of the replies to the specific questions you addressed to the United Arab Republic on 5 March 1969, that all the answers of the United Arab Republic, which reaffirm its acceptance of the Security Council resolution and its readiness to carry out the obligations emanating from it require, likewise, that Israel accept the resolution and carry out all its obligations emanating from it and in particular withdrawal from all Arab territories it occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June 1967.
Question (1)
The United Arab Republic, as it has declared before, accepts the Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and is ready to implement it in order to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles contained therein.
Question (2)
The United Arab Republic agrees to pledge termination of all claims or state of belligerency. Such a pledge becomes effective upon withdrawal of Israel's forces from all Arab territories occupied as a result of Israel's aggression of 5 June 1967.
A declaration by Israel terminating the state of belligerency would be meaningful only when Israel withdraws her forces from all Arab territories it occupied since 5 June 1967.
Question (3)
On 5 June 1967, Israel launched its aggression against three Arab States violating their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Acceptance by the United Arab Republic to pledge respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area requires the termination by Israel of its occupation and the withdrawal of its forces from all the Arab territories it occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June, and the full implementation of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967.
Question (4)
The United Arab Republic accepts the right of every State in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force, provided that Israel withdraws its forces from all Arab territories occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June 1967, and implements the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967.
Question (5)
When the question of Palestine was brought before the United Nations in 1947, the General Assembly adopted its resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, for the partition of Palestine and defined Israel's boundaries.
Question (6) [General question 7]
We have declared our readiness to implement all the provisions of the Security Council resolution covering, inter alia, the freedom of navigation in international waterways in the area, provided that Israel, likewise, implements all provisions of the Security Council resolution.
Question (7) [General question 8]
It has always been our position that the just settlement of the refugee problem is embodied in paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution 194 of December 1948, which has been unfailingly reaffirmed by each and every General Assembly session ever since its adoption.
If a plan on the basis of that paragraph is presented for consideration to the parties concerned, its acceptance by the parties and the declaration of their intention to implement it in good faith, with adequate guarantees for its full implementation would justify the implementation of the other provisions of the Security Council resolution.
Questions (8), (9) [General questions 9 and 12]
We do not believe that the establishment of demilitarized zones is a necessity. However, the United Arab Republic will not oppose the establishment of such zones if they are astride the boundaries.
Question (10) [General question 13]
In case demilitarized zones are established the United Arab Republic accepts that such zones be supervised and maintained by the United Nations.
Question (11) [General question 14]
In view of our past experience with Israel and her denunciation of four agreements signed by her with Arab States, we consider that the instrument to be signed by the United Arab Republic engaging her to carry out her obligations, should be addressed to the Security Council. Israel should, likewise, sign and address to the Security Council an instrument engaging her to carry out her obligations emanating from the Security Council Resolution of 22 November 1967. The endorsement by the Security Council of these documents would constitute the final multilateral document.
Cairo, 27 March 1969
Annex II
CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE RESUMPTION OF THE DISCUSSIONS
A. Letter dated 18 November 1970 addressed to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Israel
I have the honour to refer to my letter of 7 August 1970 addressed to the Secretary-General, referred to in document S/9902, in which I informed him of the agreement of your Government and of the Governments of Jordan and the United Arab Republic to the holding of discussions under my auspices for the purpose of reaching agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace between the parties.
As you will recall, I issued on 21 August 1970 an invitation to the parties to take part in discussions opening at New York on 25 August 1970. Ambassador Tekoah, who was Israeli representative for the initial stage of the discussions, met with me twice on the opening date, but was recalled to Israel for consultations. On his return on 8 September he communicated to me the decision of your Government, for reasons which were explained to me and have been publicly announced by your Government, to suspend its participation in the talks.
I am definitely of the view that the time has come for me once again to invite your Government to participate in discussions for the purpose of reaching agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace in accordance with Security Council resolution 242 (1967).
When I met you last on 5 November 1970, to consider the question of Israel's return to the discussions, I noted your concern about the influence of the debate of the General Assembly on the Middle East question and of its resolution 2628 (XXV). I wish to assure you in this connexion that I am proceeding on the basis that there is no change in my mandate, which I continue to regard as having been defined in Security Council resolution 242 (1967).
You will understand, I know, my desire to make a positive report to the Secretary-General about the progress of our discussions. I am accordingly inviting your Government to reconsider its position on the question and to resume its participation in the discussions. In this connexion, I wish to state that I have already been informed by the Governments of Jordan and the United Arab Republic of their continued willingness to participate.
I take this opportunity to inform you that, pending a reply from your Government to this appeal, I am returning to my post in Moscow. I hope that your Government will find it possible in the near future to respond favourably to this invitation, in which case I shall be available to return to New York at twenty-four hours' notice.
(Signed) Gunnar JARRING
B. Letter dated 18 November 1970 addressed to the Permanent
Representative of Jordan*
I have the honour to inform you that I have today addressed a letter to the Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs in which I once again appealed to his Government to resume participation in discussions for the purpose of reaching agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace in accordance with Security Council resolution 242 (1967).
In that connexion, I keep in mind the willingness of the Governments of Jordan and the United Arab Republic, as expressed to me by yourself and your colleague from the United Arab Republic, to continue to participate in such discussions.
I take this opportunity to inform you that, pending the receipt of a reply from Israel, it is my intention to return to my post in Moscow. I wish to emphasize, however, that I am ready to return here at twenty-four hours' notice on receipt of the Israeli reply.
(Signed) Gunnar JARRING
C. Letter dated 18 November 1970 from the Permanent Representative
of the United Arab Republic
With reference to your letter of today in which you inform me of your imminent return to your post in Moscow, I note with appreciation your reference to the readiness of the United Arab Republic to co-operate fully with you.
I wish to emphasize that, conscious of its obligations under the Charter and in abiding by the Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the United Arab Republic has for the last three years consistently co-operated with you, in the sincere hope that you will successfully achieve the targets entrusted, by the Secretary-General, to you in accordance with the aforementioned resolution.
Since my Government designated me last August to enter into discussions with you, I have during several meetings restated my Government's belief in a lasting peace based on the faithful implementation of the aforementioned Security Council resolution in all its parts and consequently the restoration of all Arab lands occupied by Israel since June 5, 1967, as well as ending the injustices inflicted so far on the Arab people of Palestine.
I am sure that Your Excellency's report to the Secretary-General on your mission which would be transmitted by him to the Security Council before 5 January 1971, will be of great benefit to the members of the Security Council and would assist them in taking whatever steps they may deem necessary in carrying out the responsibility entrusted to them by the Charter.
(Signed) Mohamed H. EL-ZAYYAT
D. Letter dated 1 December 1970 from the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Israel
I have received your letter of 18 November 1970 in which you invite the Government of Israel to participate in discussions under your auspices for the purpose of reaching agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace in accordance with Security Council resolution 242 (1967). I note your assurance in reply to my comments on General Assembly resolution 2628 (XXV) that you are proceeding on the basis that there is no change in your mandate, which you continue to regard as having been defined in Security Council resolution 242.
On 6 August 1970 Ambassador Tekoah conveyed to you Israel's position on the United States peace initiative. This communication remains valid as the expression of Israel's policy. Concerning the discussions which we have agreed to hold under your auspices, I also draw attention to the Israel Government's decision of 6 September 1970 which was conveyed to you by Ambassador Tekoah.
On 22 November 1970 the Government of Israel adopted and published the following decision:
We are now holding discussions on the creation of conditions which would justify a decision by the Government of Israel to hold talks with the United Arab Republic under your auspices, in accordance with our decision of 4 August 1970 conveyed to you by Ambassador Tekoah on 6 August. I shall keep you in touch with developments on this matter as they arise.
We have publicly announced that we are ready for discussions with Jordan whose Government has informed you on its continued willingness to participate in such talks.
We are also willing to hold discussions on the establishment of permanent peace with Lebanon which has announced its adherence to Security Council resolution 242.
(Signed) Abba EBAN
E. Message from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel
Further to my letter of 1 December 1970 I have the honour to inform you that the Government of Israel decided on 28 December 1970 as follows:
The present political and military conditions enable and justify the termination of the suspension of Israel participation in the talks under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring. The Government decided to authorize the Minister for Foreign Affairs to inform those concerned of the readiness of the Government of Israel to resume its participation in the Jarring talks in accordance with the basic principles of the Government policy and on the basis of its decisions of 31 July and 4 August 1970 as approved by the Knesset concerning Israel's affirmative reply to the peace initiative.
In view of this decision I would like to meet you in Jerusalem at your earliest convenience and my intention is to survey the situation, to acquaint you with the basic views of my Government and to discuss steps necessary to ensure the fulfilment of your mission for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of peace.
Abba EBAN
Document Type: Report
Document Sources: Security Council, Special Representative (SecCo resolution 242 (1967))
Subject: Closures/Curfews/Blockades, Envoy, Middle East situation, Palestine question, Peace proposals and efforts
Publication Date: 04/01/1971