Security Council resolution 265 (1969) [on Israeli military operations against a Jordanian village]
Symbol: S/RES/265(1969)
Date: 1969-04-01
Meeting record: S/PV.1473
Subjects: ARMED INCIDENTS|CEASEFIRES|ISRAEL|JORDAN|MIDDLE EAST SITUATION
Notes: Concerns Israeli military operations against a Jordanian village.
In: Resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, 1969. - S/INF/24/Rev.1. - 1970. - p. 3. - (SCOR, 24th year).

Resolution 265 (1969)
of 1 April 1969

The Security Council,

Having considered the agenda contained in document
S/Agenda/1466/Rev.1,

Having heard the statements made
Council,

Recalling its resolution 236 (1967) of 12 June
1967,

Observing that numerous premeditated violations of
the cease-fire have occurred,

Viewing with deep concern that the recent air attacks on Jordanian villages and other populated areas
were of a pre-planned nature, in violation of resolutions
248 (1968) of 24 March 1968 and 256 (1968) of
16 August 1968,

Gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation
which endangers peace and security in the area,

1. Reaffirms resolutions 248 (1968) and 256
(1968);

2. Deplores the loss of civilian life and damage to
property;

3. Condemns the recent premeditated air attacks
launched by Israel on Jordanian villages and populated
areas in flagrant violation of the United Nations
Charter and the cease-fire resolutions, and warns once
again that if such attacks were to be repeated the
Security Council would have to meet to consider further
and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to
ensure against repetition of such attacks.

Adopted at the 1473rd
meeting by I1 votes to
none, with 4 abstentions
(Colombia, Paraguay, United
Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland,
United States of America).

Texto español (official Spanish version): LA SITUACION EN EL ORIENTE MEDIO:

Decisiones

En su 1466a. sesión, celebrada el 27 de marzo de
1969, el Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes
de Jordania y de Israel a participar, sin voto, en la
discusión del tema titulado:

“La situación en el Oriente Medio:

“Carta, de fecha 26 de marzo de 1969, dirigida al Presidente del Consejo de Seguridad por el
Representante Permanente de Jordania (S/9113)*.

“La situación en el Oriente Medio:

“Carta, de fecha 27 de marzo de 1969, dirigida
al Presidente del Consejo de Seguridad por el Representante Permanente de Israel (S/9114)”.

En su 1467a. sesión, celebrada el 27 de marzo de
1969, el Consejo decidió invitar al representante de la
Arabia Saudita a participar, sin voto, en la discusión
de la cuestión.

Resolución 265 (1969)
de 1” de abril de 1969

El Consejo de Seguridad,

Habiendo examinado el orden del día que figura
en el documento S/Agenda/1466/Rev.1,

Habiendo escuchado las declaraciones formuladas
ante el Consejo,

Recordando su resolución 236 (1967), de 12 de
junio de 1967,

Observando que ha habido muchas violaciones premeditadas de la cesación del fuego,

Considerando con profunda preocupación que los
recientes ataques aéreos contra aldeas y otras zonas
pobladas de Jordania fueron planeados de antemano,
en violación de las resoluciones 248 (1968) de 24 de
marzo de 1968 y 256 (1968), de 16 de agosto de 1968,

Gravemente preocupado por el empeoramiento de la

situación que pone en peligro la paz y la seguridad en
la región,

1. Reafirma las resoluciones 248 (1968) y 256
(1968);

2. Deplora la pérdida de vidas en la población civil
y los daños a la propiedad;

*El Consejo adoptó también resoluciones o decisiones sobre esta cuestión en 1967 y 1968.

* Véase Actas Oficiales del Consejo de Seguridad, Vigésimo
Cuarto Año, Suplemento de enero, febrero y marzo de 1969.

3. Condena los recientes ataques aéreos premeditados desencadenados por Israel contra aldeas y zonas
pobladas de Jordania en flagrante violación de la Carta
de las Naciones Unidas y de las resoluciones relativas
a la cesación del fuego, y advierte una vez más que,
de repetirse tales ataques, el Consejo de Seguridad tendrá que considerar medidas nuevas y más eficaces,
conforme a lo previsto en la Carta, para asegurar que
tales ataques no vuelvan a repetirse.

Aprobada en la 1473a. sesión
por 11 votos contra ninguno y
4 abstenciones (Colombia, Estados Unidos de América, Paraguay, Reino Unido de Gran
Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte).

Decisiones

En su 1482a. sesión, celebrada el 30 de junio de
1969, el Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes
de Jordania, Israel, la República Arabe Unida, Arabia
Saudita, Siria y Marruecos a participar sin voto, en la
discusión del tema titulado “La situación en el Oriente
Medio: carta, de fecha 26 de junio de 1969, dirigida
al Presidente del Consejo de Seguridad por el Representante Permanente de Jordania (S/9284)”7.

En su 1483a, sesión, celebrada el 1% de julio de 1969,
el Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes de Trak,
Indonesia y Líbano a participar, sin voto, en la discusión de la cuestión.

En su 1484a. sesión, celebrada el 2 de julio de 1969,
el Consejo decidió invitar al representante de Malasia
a participar, sin voto, en la discusión de la cuestión.

En su 1485a. sesión, celebrada el 3 de julio de 1969,
el Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes del
Afganistán, Sudán, Yemen, Túnez y Kuwait a participar, sin voto, en la discusión de la cuestión.

Resolución 267 (1969)
de 3 de julio de 1969

El Consejo de Seguridad,

Recordando su resolución 252 (1968) de 21 de
mayo de 1968 y las anteriores resoluciones 2253

7 Ibid., Suplemento de abril, mayo y junio de 1969.

Texte français (official French version): LA SITUATION AU MOYEN-ORIENT®

Décisions

A sa 1466° séance, le 27 mars 1969, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter les représentants de la Jordanie et
d'Israël à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion
de la question intitulée :

“La situation au Moyen-Orient :

“Lettre, en date du 26 mars 1969, adressée au
Président du Conseil de sécurité par le représentant permanent de la Jordanie (S/9113°).

“La situation au Moyen-Orient :

“Lettre, en date du 27 mars 1969, adressée au
Président du Conseil de sécurité par le représentant permanent d'Israël (S/91146).”

A sa 1467e séance, le 27 mars 1969, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter le représentant de l’Arabie Saoudite à
participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la
question.

Résolution 265 (1969)
du ler avril 1969

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Ayant examiné l’ordre du jour publié sous la cote
S/Agenda/1466/Rev.1,

Ayant entendu les déclarations faites devant le
Conseil,

gEappelant sa résolution 236 (1967) du 12 juin
1967,

Observant que de nombreuses violations préméditées
du cessez-le-feu se sont produites,

Constatant avec une profonde inquiétude que les
attaques aériennes lancées récemment contre des villages et d’autres zones habitées en Jordanie avaient été
préparées à l'avance, en violation des résolutions 248
(1968) du 24 mars 1968 et 256 (1968) du 16 août
1968,

Gravement préoccupé de la détérioration de la situation, qui met en danger la paix et la sécurité dans la
région,

1. Réaffirme les résolutions 248 (1968) et 256
(1968);

2. Déplore les pertes de vies humaines parmi la
population civile, ainsi que les pertes matérielles;

3. Condamne les attaques aériennes préméditées
lancées récemment par Israël contre des villages et des
zones habitées en Jordanie en violation flagrante de

5 Question ayant fait l'objet de résolutions ou décisions
de la part du Conseil en 1967 et 1968.

6 Voir Documents officiels du Conseil de sécurité, vingtquatrième année, Supplément de janvier, février et mars 1969.

la Charte des Nations Unies et des résolutions relatives
au cessez-le-feu, et avertit une fois de plus que si de
telles attaques se répétaient, le Conseil de sécurité
devrait se réunir pour envisager des mesures nouvelles
et plus efficaces, prévues par la Charte, pour assurer
que de pareilles attaques ne se répètent pas.

Adoptée à la 1473€ séance par
11 voix contre zero, avec 4 abstentions (Colombie, Ftats-Unis
d'Amérique, Paraguay et
Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord).

Décisions

A sa 1482° séance, le 30 juin 1969, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter les représentants de la Jordanie,
d’Israël, de la République arabe unie, de l’Arabie
Saoudite, de la Syrie et du Maroc à participer, sans
droit de vote, à la discussion de la question intitulée
“La situation au Moyen-Orient : lettre, en date du
26 juin 1969, adressée au Président du Conseil de
sécurité par le représentant permanent de la Jordanic
(S/92847)”.

A sa 1483° séance, le 1°" juillet 1969, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter les représentants de l’Irak, de l’Indo-

nésie et du Liban à participer, sans droit de vote, à
la discussion de la question.

A sa 1484° séance, le 2 juillet 1969, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter le représentant de la Malaisie à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la
question.

A sa 1485° séance, le 3 juillet 1969, le Conseil a dé-
cidé d'inviter les représentants de l’Afghanistan, du Soudan, du Yémen, de la Tunisie et du Koweït à participer,
sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

Résolution 267 (1969)
du 3 juillet 1969

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Rappelant sa résolution 252 (1968) du 21 mai
1968 et les résolutions antérieures de l’Assemblée géné-

7 fbid., Supplément d'avril, mai et juin 1969.

Русский текст (official Russian version): ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ НА БЛИЖНЕМ ВОСТОКЕ °

Решения

27 марта 1969 года Совет на своем 1466-м за-
седании постановил пригласить представителей
Иордании и Израиля принять участие без права
голоса в обсуждении вопроса, сформулирован-
ного следующим образом:

«Положение на Ближнем Востоке:

Письмо постоянного представителя Норда-
нии от 26 марта 1969 года на имя  Председа-
теля Совета Безопасности (5/9113)°.

Положение наз Ближнем Востоке:

Письмо постоянного представителя Израиля
от 27 марта 1969 года на имя Председателя
Совета Безопасности (5/9114) 6».

27 марта 1969 года Совет на своем 1467-м за-
седании постановил пригласить представителя
Саудовской Аравии принять участие без права
голоса в обсуждении этого вопроса.

Резолюция 265 (1969)
от 1 апреля 1969 года
Совет Безопасности,

рассмотрев повестку дня, содержащуюся в до-
кументе 5/Асеп({а/1466/Кеу.1,

заслушав заявления, которые были сделаны в
Совете,

напоминая резолюцию 236 (1967) от 12 июня
1967 года,

отмечая тот факт, что имели место многочис-
ленные преднамеренные парушения прекраще-
ния огня,

отмечая с глубокой озабоченностью, что недав-
ние воздушные нападения на иорданские дерев-
ни и другие населенные районы носили заранее
распланированный характер и являются наруше-
нием резолюций 248 (1968) от 24 марта 1968 го-
да и 256 (1968) от 16 августа 1968 года,

будичи серьезно озабочен ухудшающейся 0б-
становкой, которая угрожает миру и безопасно-
сти в этом районе,

|. подтверждает резолюции 248 (1968) и 256
(1968);

2. глубоко сожалсет о потерях жизней среди
гражданского паселення и ущербе, нанесенном
имуществу;

3. осуждает недавние преднамеренные воздуш-
ные нападения, совершенные Израилем на иор-

$ Резолюции или решения по этому вопросу были также
приняты в 1967 и 1968 годах.

° См. Официальные отчеты Совета Безопасности, Ова-
Оцать четвертый год, Дополнение за январь, февраль и
март 1969 года.

ланские деревни и населенные районы, которые
являются вопиющим нарушетием Устава Орга-
низации Объединенных Наций и резолюций о
прекращении огня, и вновь предупреждает, что
при повторении подобных нападений — Совету
Безопасности придется собраться для рассмот-
рения дальнейших н более эффективных шагов,
как предусмотрено в Уставе, чтобы гарантиро-
вать неповторение подобных нападений.

Принята на 1473-м заседа-
нии И голосами при 4 воз-
державшихся (Колумбия,
Парагвай, Соединенное Ко-
ролевство — Великобритании
и Северной Ирландии, Сое-
Оиненные Штаты Америки),
причем никто не голосовал
против. )

Решения

30 нюня 1969 года Совет на своем 1482-м за-
седании постановил пригласить представителей
Пордании, Израиля, Объединенной Арабской
Республики, Саудовской Аравии, Сирии и Ма-
рокко принять участие без права голоса в 0об-
суждении вопроса, сформулированного следую-
щим образом: «Положение на Ближнем Восто-
ке: письмо постоянного представителя Иорда-
нни от 26 нюня 1969 года на имя Председателя
Совета Безопасности (5/9284)7».

! нюля 1969 года Совет па своем 1483-м засе-
дации постановил пригласить представителей
Ирака, Индонезии и Ливана принять участие без
права голоса в обсуждении этого вопроса.

2 июля 1969 года Совет на своем 1484-м засе-
дании постановил пригласить представителя Ма-
лайзии принять участие без права голоса в
обсуждении этого вопроса.

3 июля 1969 года Совет на своем 1485-м засе-
дании постановил пригласить представителей
Афганистана, Судана, Йемена, Туниса и Кувейта
принять участие без права голоса в обсуждении
этого вопроса.

Резолюция 267 (1969)
от 3 июля 1969 года
Совет Безопасности,

ссылаясь на свою резолюцию 252 (1968) от
21 мая 1968 года и на ранее принятые резолю-
ции 2253 (Е$-М) и 2254 (Е5-У) Генеральной
Ассамблеи от 4 и 14 июля 1967 года, соответ-
ственно, относительно мер и действий Израиля,
затрагивающих статус города Иерусалима,

заслушав заявления
по этому вопросу,

заинтересованных сторон

* Тим же. Дополнение за апрель, май и шонь 1969 года.

中文文本 (official Chinese version): 中 东 局 势

决 ， 定
理事 会 於 一 九 六 九 年 三 月 二 十 七 日 第 一 四 六 六 砍

会 议决 定 请 狗 旦 及 以 色 列 代表 参加 讨论 下 开 项 目 ， 但
无 才 决 权 :

“中 东 局 过 :

“一 九 六 九 年 三 月 二 十 六 日 狗 且 常任 代表 至
安全 理事 会 主席 画 (S/91137。。
“中 东 局 鄞 :

“一 九 六 九 年 三 月 二 十 七 日 以 色 列 常任 代表
致 安全 理事 会 主席 画 (S/9114)。。

理事 会 於 一 九 六 九 年 三 月 二 十 七 日 第 一 四 六 七 区
会 议决 定 戎 沙特 阿拉 伯 代 表 参 加 言论 此 项 问题 ， 但 扰
表决 权 。

决 访 二 天 五 (一 九 六 九 )
一 九 六 九 年 四 月 一 日
安全 理事 会 ，
业已 赛 议 文 件 S/Agenda/1466/Rev.1L 所 载 计 程 ，
业已 路 取 各 方 在 理事 会 发 表 之 陈述 ，
发 按 一 九 六 七 年 六 月 十 二 日 决 划 二 三 六 (一 九 六
七 )，
察 悉 事先 预谋 之 违反 停火 情事 层 出 不 家 ，
观 需 最 近 空 厅 金 旦 攻 村 及 其 他 有 人 勾 地 区 一 举 ，
有 力 事先 铸 划 之 这 反 一 九 六 八 年 三 月 二 十 四 日 决 蔽 二

四 从 (一 九 六 八 ) 及 一 九 六 八 年 八 月 十 六 日 决 蒿 二 五 六
(一 九 六 八 ) 情 事 ， 深 坑 遇 局 ，

深切 天 局 危及 惟 地 区 和 在 及 安全 之 日 丛 恶 化 情
势 ，

一 . 重申 决议 二 四 八 (一 九 六 有) 及 二 五 六 (一 九
大作);

二 . 痛惜 平民 变 生 ， 财 大 受 损害 ;

三 . 责 以 色 列 最 近 重大 过 反 联合 国 害 章 及 停火
决 玉 ， 对 多 旦 乡村 及 有 人 症 地 区 发 动 预 柑 之 空 腥 ， 花

“一 九 六 七 年 及 一 九 六 从 年 ， 亦 委 通 过 关於 此 问题 之 决 功
或 决定 。

“参看 安全 理事 会 正式 筷 儿 ， 第 二 十 四 年 ， 一 九 六 九 年 一
月 .二 月 及 三 月 份 补 编 。

再 度 警告 ， 伯 重 施 此 种 恤 鸡 ， 理 事 会 定 将 天 会 考虑 害

章 所 定 其 他 更 有 效 步 县 ， 以 确保 此 种 骨 不 再 发 生 。
第 一 四 七 三 次 会 议 以 十
一 对 对 过 通过 ， 训 机 者
四 (哥伦比亚 、 巴 拉 圭 、
大 不 列 颠 及 北 爱 需 随 联
合 王 国美 利 坚 合 杂
国 )。

决 定

理事 会 於 一 九 六 畴 年 六 月 三 十 日 第 一 四 八 二 次 会
六 决定 请 绝 旦 以色列 ,阿拉 伯 联 合共 和 国 ,沙特 阿拉
值钱 利 亚 及 摩洛哥 代表 参加 计 葵 题 志 “ 中 东 局 势 : 一
九 六 九 年 大 月 二 十 六 日 绝 且 常任 代表 至 安全 理事 会 主
席 夯 CS/9284)”" 之 项 目 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

理事 会 蕉 一 九 六 思 年 七 月 一 日 第 一 四 八 三 次 会 凡
决定 请 伊拉克 .印度尼西亚 及 黎 巴 墩 代表 参加 时 论 此
项 问题 ,但 无 帮 决 权 。

理事 会 於 一 九 六 九 年 七 月 二 日 第 一 四 八 四 次 会 议
决定 请 马来西亚 代表 参加 讨论 此 项 问题 ， 但 无 才 决
机 。

理事 会 於 一 九 六 九 年 七 月 三 日 第 一 四 八 五 藉 会 凡
决定 请 阿富汗 , 薪 丹 .也门 ,突尼斯 及 科威特 代表 参加
时 论 此 项 问题 ， 但 无 才 决 权 。

决 芒 二 关 七 (一 九 六 九 )
一 九 六 九 年 七 月 三 日
安全 理事 会 ，
覆 按 关於 以 色 列 所 拧 影 响 耶路撒冷 市 地 位 之 措施
及 行动 之 一 九 六 八 年 五 月 二 十 一 日 理事 会 决议 二 五 二
《一 九 六 八 ) 及 一 九 六 七 年 七 月 四 日 及 十 四 日 大 会 决议
二 二 五 三 ( 肾 特 五 ) 及 二 二 五 四 ( 紧 特 五 )，
业已 险 悉 与 此 问题 有 了 关 各 方 之 陈述 ，
人 备 悉 自 通过 上 述 决 讨 后， 以 色 列 已 探 取 其 他 足以
改 罗 耶 路 撤 冷 市 之 地 位 之 措施 ，

同上， 一 九 六 九 年 四 月 ,五 月 及 六 月 份 补 编 。


Draft resolution (S/9120/Rev. 1):
UNITED NATIONS

SECURITY
COUNCIL

Distr.
GENERAL

5/9120 /Rev.1
1 April 1969

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

PAKISTAN, SENEGAL AND ZAMBIA: REVISED JOINT DRAFT RESOLUTION

The Security Council,

Having considered. the agenda contained in document 5/Agenda/1466,

Having heard the statements made before the Council,

Recalling resolution 236 (1967),
Observing that numerous premeditated violations of the cease-fire have
occurred,

Viewing with deep concern that the recent air attacks on Jordanian villages

and other populated areas were of a pre-planned nature, in violation of resolutions
2L8 (1968) and 256.(1968),

Gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation which endangers peace

and security in the area,

1. Reaffirms resolutions 248 (1968) and 256 (1960);

2. Deplores the loss of civilian life and damage to property;

3. Condemns the recent premeditated air attacks launched by Israel on
Jordanian villages and populated areas in flagrant violation of the United Nations
Charter and the cease-fire resolutions and warns once again that if such attacks
were to be repeated the Council would have to meet to consider further more

effective steps as envisaged in the Charter tO ensure against repetition of such

attacks.

—

69-06688

Meeting record:
UN LIBRARY
UNITED NATIONS DEC 21 1972

>

SECURITY COUNCIL
OFFICIAL RECORDS

TWENTY-FOURTH YEAR

rd
1 47 3 MEETING: 1 APRIL 1969

NEW YORK
CONTENTS
Page
Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1473) ...... 1
1

Adoption of the agenda . . .. ... i eee

The situation in the Middle East:
Letter dated 26 March 1969 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan

addressed to the President of the Security Council (S§/9113) ............

The situation in the Middle East:
Letter dated 27 March 1969 from the Permanent Representative of Israel

addressed to the President of the Security Council (§/9114) ............

S/PV.1473
NOTE

Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with
figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.

Documents of the Security Council (symbol S/. . .) are normally published in quarterly
Supplements of the Official Records of the Security Council. The date of the document
indicates the supplement in which it appears or in which information about it is given.

The resolutions of the Security Council, numbered in accordance with a system
adopted in 1964, are published in yearly volumes of Resolutions and Decisions of the
Security Council. The new system, which has been applied retroactively to resolutions
adopted before 1 January 1965, became fully operative on that date.
FOURTEEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-THIRD MEETING
Held in New York on Tuesday, 1 April 1969, at 3.30 p.m.

President: Mr. P. B. KHATRI (Nepal).

Present: The representatives of the following States:
Algeria, China, Colombia, Finland, France, Hungary, Nepal,
Pakistan, Paraguay, Senegal, Spain, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America and Zambia.

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1473)
1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. The situation in the Middle East:
Letter dated 26 March 1969 from the Permanent
Representative of Jordan addressed to the President of
the Security Council (8/9113).

3. The situation in the Middle East:
Letter dated 27 March 1969 from the Permanent
Representative of Israel addressed to the President of
the Security Council (8/9114).

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted,

The situation in the Middle East

Letter dated 26 March 1969 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan addressed to the President of the
Security Council ($/9113)

The situation in the Middle East

Letter dated 27 March 1969 from the Permanent Representative of Israel addressed to the President of the Security
Council (8/9114)

1. The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the decisions
taken previously by the Council, I propose now, with the
consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of
Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia to take seats at the Council
table in order to participate, without the right to vote, in
the discussion.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. El-Farra
(Jordan), Mr. Y. Tekoah (Israel), and Mr.J. M. Ber yp
(Saudi Arabia) took places at the Council table.

2. Mr. SHAHI (Pakistan): Since I presented the draft
resolution [S/9120]1 on behalf of Senegal, Zambia and
Pakistan this morning, my delegation, together with the
delegations of Senegal and Zambia, has held further
intensive consultations with certain other delegations with a
view to moving towards unanimity, if possible. It is a
matter of regret that, despite the best efforts of all
concerned, including certain permanent members of the

‘Security Council, it has not been possible to reach that

goal. However, in deference to the views of one delegation,
the three sponsors have revised their original draft resolution, and the revised text has been distributed to members
of the Security Council. I shall content myself with drawing
attention to the changes that have been made to the
original text.

3. In the third preambular paragraph of the original
version [S/9120] the word “Reaffirming” has been deleted
and has been replaced by “Recalling”, Also, the words,
“calling for respect...” right down to the words “the
cease-fire resolutions” have been deleted, so that this third
preambular paragraph now reads: “Recalling resolution
236 (1967),”.

4, In the operative part, paragraph 1, which “deplores the
loss of civilian life and damage to property,” is to be
renumbered paragraph 2; operative paragraph 2 is to be
renumbered 3, and the following paragraph is to be inserted
as operative paragraph 1: “Reaffirms resolutions
248 (1968) and 256 (1968)".

1 The text of the joint draft resolution of Pakistan, Senegal and
Zambia read as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Having considered the agenda contained in document
S/Agenda/1466,

- “Having heard the statements made before the Council,

“Reaffirming resolution 236 (1967) calling for respect fdr the
cease-fire and resolutions 248 (1968) and 256 (1968), condemning the air attacks by Israel on the Jordanian territory in
flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire
resolutions,

“Observing that numerous: premcditated violations of the
cease-fire have occurred,

“Viewing with deep concern that the recent air attacks on
Jordanian villages and other populated areas were of a pre-planned
nature, in violation of resolutions 248 (1968) and 256 (1968),

“Gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation which
endangers peace and security in the area,

“1. Deplores the loss of civilian life and damage to property;

“2, Condemns the recent premeditated air attacks launched by
israel on Jordanian villages and populated areas in flagrant
violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire
resolutions and warns once again that If such attacks were to be
repeated the Council would have to meet to consider further more
eff :ctive steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure repetition of
such attacks.”
5. These revisions have been made, as I stated earlier, in
order to accommodate to a wider extent certain views that
were expressed to the three sponsors in the consultations
that have been going on this afternoon.

6. The PRESIDENT: The President takes note of the fact
that the representative of Pakistan, on behalf of the
co-sponsors, has introduced some revisions to the draft
resolution contained in document S/9120. A new text, as
revised, has been circulated provisionally in document
$/9120/Rev.1.

7. Mr. SOLANO LOPEZ (Paraguay) (translated from
Spanish): Mr, President, please accept my heartiest congratulations on being honoured today with the responsibility of
presiding over this Council, The Presidency remains in good
hands. T assure you that you will always find my delegation
ready to give you all the co-operation you may need in the
fulfilment of your high office.

8. At the same time I should like to express my
delegation’s appreciation to Ambassador Csatorday, our
President for March, for the efficient work he has accomplished with so much skill and devotion.

9. I understand that the Council will shortly take a
decision on the revised draft resolution submitted by
Pakistan, Senegal and Zambia [S/9120/Rev.1]. On this
understanding and with the Council’s permission, I should
like to explain the vote which my delegation will cast.

10. In my statement at the Council’s 1470th meeting on
the morning of Saturday, 29 March, | indicated my
delegations attitude to the grave question now being
considered by the Council. On that occasion I said:

“We deeply regret the loss of lives, whether Arab or
Israel, and our feeling of grief is great and sincere. We are
distressed at the material losses, all the more because the
sufferer, Jordan, is a developing country which for that
very reason has an essentially weak economic infrastructure.” [1470th meeting, para. 36.]

I'went on to say:

“We have never been, nor are we now, prepared to
condone the violent incidents and other serious violations
of the cease-fire, and we do not believe that the members
of the Council or the Council as a whole are prepared to
do so. We do not accept the doctrine of the right of
reprisal whereby a State can presumably arrogate to itself
the right to carry out military operations of the kind now
being considered by the Council in the territory of the
other State.

“We deplore all those incidents, but at the same time
we distinguish between the two types of action because
their nature is essentially different.” [1470th meeting,
para. 37.]

11. In keeping with the spirit of that statement, my
delegation understands and sympathizes with the substance
of the revised draft resolution submitted by Pakistan,
Senegal and Zambia, on which the Council is about to take

a decision. Of course, its text largely reproduces the text of
earlier resolutions 248 and 256 of 1968 which, as I said, we
supported. At the same time, however, we are bound to
point out that the revised draft fails to reproduce certain
parts of those two resolutions which in our opinion should
be included. I refer to the absence of direct and unequivocal references to all the violent incidents which have been
committed in violation of the cease-fire, and the failure to
reproduce the Council’s opinion of them expressed on
earlier occasions.

12. For the rest, we all know that in the discharge of his
duties a representative expresses his Government’s views, [
regret that I have been unable to communicate with my
Government in order to inform it of the revised text of the
draft resolution and obtain relevant instructions. Therefore,
not because of what the draft resolution contains but
because of what it does not, my delegation will have no
other alternative but to abstain when it is put to the vote.

13. 1 should like to conclude this brief statement with two
comments. The first is to express our gratitude to those
who have participated in the negotiations that have taken
place with a view to finding a formula acceptable to all and
our regret that those determined efforts have failed. The
second comment is to voice the hope that the results of the
forthcoming vote will not adversely affect the talks to be
held on the Middle East question between four permanent
members of the Council, which, according to an unofficial
announcement, will begin in the next few days.

14. The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of
Paraguay for his kind words.

15. Mr. BERARD (France) (translated from French):
Mr. President, let me say first of all how pleased my
delegation and I are to see you in the Chair. Your country
and mine are linked by bonds of especially cordial
friendship. Moreover, we are familiar with your qualities,
which have been particularly evident since you became our
colleague in the Security Council. The friendship between
our two countries is based to a large extent on the deep
admiration which all my countrymen feel for your country’s culture, which in its thousands of years has produced
some magnificent works of art.

16. The way in which your predecessor presided over the
Security Council came as no surprise to us. We were all
aware of his quite exceptional command of foreign languages, and of his wide experience in the Security Council
and the United Nations. In other words, the truly masterly
fashion in which he presided over our debates fully
accorded with our expectations, and we express our thanks
to him.

17. 1should just like to say a word about the vote which is
soon to be taken. We wish it had been possible to draft a
resolution which would have commanded the unanimous
support of the members of the Council and to which in
particular the United States, the Soviet Union, the United
Kingdom and France would have agreed. Unfortunately,
however, efforts towards that end, in which my delegation
took an active part, have unhappily failed to yield all the
desired results. In my statement of 28 March [1468th
meeting] 1 said that the bombing of the village of Ein Hazar
and similar air raids deserved the severest condemnation. |
also said that we demanded strict observation of the
cease-fire and should condemn all violations of jt,

18. Since agreement has not been reached on a text which
would have received unanimous support, my delegation will
vote in favour of the draft before us.

19. The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of
France for the generous words he has spoken about me
personally and about my country.

20. I now call on the representative of Saudi Arabia.

21. Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia): Allow me, Mr. President,. to associate myself with the laudatory remarks
addressed to your predecessor in the Presidency of the
Council, Ambassador Csatorday, which remarks are fully
merited. Ambassador Csatorday is indeed proficient in
several languages, as Ambassador Malik reminded us this
morning; but it is his intelligence and perspicacity that have
really enamoured many of his colleagues in the United
Nations, including myself. But above all, he is a humanitarian of the highest order. To the honour of his country
and to his own credit, in the First Committee he has
initiated action time and again, by way of draft resolutions,
in order to ban bacteriological and chemical warfare, a type
of warfare which, unfortunately, is still being waged
nowadays, in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention
banning the use of poison gas and other allied diabolical
weapons,

22. Regarding yourself, Mr, President, I should like to say
that a general turned statesman is always to be welcomed,
even more so in the twentieth century. This is in the best
tradition of Lao-Tse, who lived five centuries before Christ
not very far from your beautiful country. You, Sir, must be
dedicated to peace, so dedicated to peace that it is to the
honour of His Majesty your King and of your Government
that they have chosen you to represent Nepal in your post
at the United Nations, the purposes and principles of which
will one day, we hope, be half as lofty as the majestic
mountains that tower over Nepal and as pure as the cternal
snows that cap those mountains,

23. Before addressing myself to the draft resolution,
which, as we have learned from the statement of our
colleague from Pakistan, has recently been amended, 1
should like to say that Israel has, time and again, served
notice, through declarations made by its Foreign Minister
and subsequently by the lady who has assumed the
Premiership, that Israel refuses any solution worked out by
the major Powers which does not envisage direct negotiations leading to ultimate peace in the form of treaties with
the three Arab States, the territories of which Israel has
usurped. Furthermore, Israel insists that the question of
Jerusalem is not negotiable: in other words, Jerusalem must
remain a part of Israel. Time and again this has been
mentioned, Also, frontiers should be rectified in favour of
Isracl’s security.

24. In their innermost hearts the Israeli authorities, as well
as the leaders of Governments that support them, realize

-or they should realize by this time-—that no Arab
Government has the right to accede to what I might call
Israel's Diktat. With all due respect to the endeavours of the
major Powers to bring about peace in Palestine, any
solution that does not accede to the wishes of Israel that
have just mentioned regarding Jerusalem and the occupied
territories will be foredoomed.

25. What does Israel expect the Arab Governments to do,
to crush the Palestinians residing in their respective coun.
tries? What about those bombs that allegedly were planted
in the supermarket in Jerusalem, in the university on
Mt. Scopus, I believe, and in other places? Who planted
those bombs? Did the Jordanian Government send secret
agents to do that? No; nobody knows better than Israel
that it was Palestinians—frustrated Palestinians—who did
that. Does Mr. Tekoah for a moment believe that those
Palestinians informed the Jordanian Government, or any
Arab Government, of their plans? [ believe he should know
by this time that the Palestinians have emerged as an
independent force in the area. Of course, the sympathies of
the Arab people in Jordan, in Egypt, in Syria, as far away as
Murocco--everywhere~are with the Palestinian fighters
whom Mr. Tekoah calls terrorists.

26. Now we come to the crux of the question, to the draft
resolution that has been submitted, to which I will address
myself in a few moments. But before I do that I must
reiterate what my brother from Jordan said this morning,
quoting from The New York Times, which is pro-Israel, to
say the least. And it is natural that it should be pro-Israel.
However, I will not go into that, into why it is. You all
know. The representative of Jordan mentioned this morning that resistance took place, according to The New York
Times, both from within and from without the occupied
territories. Should the Jordanian Government be made
responsible for those Palestinians who are fighting to
retrieve their homeland? And have we not decided in this
Council time and again that reprisals should not be
permissible? Whom does Mr. Tekoah think he is fooling
when he states that as long as there are guerrillas Israel will
arrogate itself a free hand to crush those fighters wherever
they may be?

27. We heard the representative of Zambia say this
morning that Israel might imagine that somewhere behind
every bush there is a Palestinian. There arc Palestinians in
the United States. Maybe they are conspiring here. We do
not know. They do not tell me whether they are. Why does
not Israel convert its El Al airplanes into bombers and find
out? Maybe the Palestinians are lurking in Queens or in
Brooklyn, because there are many Palestinians here. Israel
only fights Jordan, which cannot send an air armada the
way you are doing, Mr. Tekoah. Jordan cannot send an air
armada to Israel. What chivalry, after you have occupied
half of Jordan, to take it upon yourself to chastise a people
who have encroached on no one. They never did so even
before the country was known as Jordan.

28. Inasmuch as I do not like to take issue with a
magnanimous representative, none other than Ambassador
Yost, whom it was my privilege to have known for many
years and who is familiar with the area, having served his
country in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, I take
the liberty of drawing his attention to what he said this
morning and of pointing out how it will be interpreted all
over the Arab world. I think it is my duty as an Arab to
draw the attention of that great country, the United States,
to the repercussions that its policy regarding the Middle
East will have all over the area—from Morocco to the
confines of Iran, down to the heart of Africa in the Sudan.
I shall paraphrase the words of Ambassador Yost in order
not to repeat his whole speech. Ambassador Yost said, in
explanation of his vote, that he would have wished to vote
for the draft resolution condemning the Israeli air attack. I
then expected to find the word “but” or “however”, and it
came. However, Ambassador Yost continued, the air
attacks could not be considered in isolation. He wished to
condemn also the attacks on schools and marketplaces and
call upon those in a position to do so to end such attacks.

29. There is no one in a position to do so, I may say. It is
the Palestinian people. If the United States Government
would like to initiate contact with the Palestinian representatives—and they may not represent all the people—that is
its privilege to do so. Jordan, or any other Arab country for
that matter, has no authority over the Palestinian people.
And let us assume that it is in the interests of the
Governments to stop them, the Governments would fall
down because the sentiment of the people all over the Arab
world, with no exception, is with the Palestinian people.
Therefore, there is that possibility if the United States, as a
big Power, wants to explore it—and this applies also to the
Soviet Union, because it is another great Power and it is in
the area, whether some like it or not, Let them find out
through their emissaries what can be done with the
Palestinian people. We, the Arab Governments, have no
right to tell the Palestinian people not to organize to
retrieve their homeland. We cannot arrogate that right to
ourselves.

30. Again, I must mention that the Arab Governments are
not prepared to endanger themselves with respect to their
own people in their respective countries by telling the
Palestinian people to “stop fighting the Israelis because you
are making it hot for us”. Let us assume that some Arab
Governments—and this is only an assumption—by setting up
a military government should try to crush the Palestinians
inside their countries. What would happen? Revolution,
anarchy, riots. Maybe this is what Mr. Tekoah and his
leaders want to see. They they would be able to consolidate
what they have taken.

31. So no matter how you look at that question, there is
no solution, whether by way of resolutions or by way of all
the caucuses which the four major Powers have had or. will
have in the future, unless the Palestinian people are
satisfied. For a long time they were inside the bottle with a
heavy seal. This reminds me of one of the Arabian tales: the
seal of the bottle is broken and the genie is out of the
bottle. Try to put the genie back into the bottle, any one of
you, We cannot—the Arab Governments cannot and will
not. Let us see whether the four Powers will be able to put
the genie back into the bottle. These Arabian tales and
fables are very illustrative of what is obtaining nowadays in
our area.

32. Mr. Yost, as the representative of the United States,
condemns all violations of the cease-fire, and he particularly

condemns the air attacks which led to the indiscriminate
deaths in Jordan. However, those attacks, he reminds us,
should not be considered in isolation and he calls upon
those in a position to do so to end such attacks. We are in
no position to stop those attacks. That is the truth, my dear
friend. We Arab Governments are in no position to do that,
not even Saudi Arabia, which is far from the arena of

fighting.

33. But it is very curious, because we have mutual
interests with the United States. Maybe their interests with
Istael tip the scale in favour of Israel. With regard to all of
the Arab countries that have interests, if we put those
interests in one pan of the scale and the United States puts
its interests with Israel in the other pan, we will find that
our pan is up in the air. What has happened since
Mr. Wiggins was here as the representative of the United
States, and before him Mr. Goldberg—or rather Mr. Ball?
Mr. Goldberg would never have condemned Israel at any
price.

34. 1 want to refer the representative of the United States
to two resolutions, namely resolution 248 (1968) of 24
March 1968 and resolution 256 (1968) of 16 August 1968,
adopted by the Council and condemning the military
attacks launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the
United Nations Charter. This was in the 24 March resolution. And then, in the 16 August resolution it condemned
“the further military attacks launched by Israel in flagrant
violation of the United Nations Charter ...”.

35. What has changed since then? From the Arab point of
view that is a retrogressive step taken by the United States
in so far as the latest aggression of Israel in Jordan is
concerned. That is a retrogression. I do not blame
Mr. Tekoah for taking a cynical attitude about all this
business here in the Council. I do not blame him whatsoever. He knows that one of the major Powers will not
condemn Israel, as it had done in two previous resolutions,
namely in the resolutions I cited.

36. Let us for a moment see how the voting is going in the
Council. It is very significant, Who submits the draft
resolution of today? An Asian country represented on the
Council and two African countries. Who opposes that same
draft resolution? Not all the Western countries, but the
protagonist of the Western countries, we all must admit, is
the United States of America. Are the Africans and the
Asians wrong in considering that Israel is an intrusion which
has caused an abscess, like a foreign matter in the body
politic and body social of the Middle East?

37. Now we come to another great country, a major
country. I do not think the word “great” is correct; I
believe that only our Creator or the forces of nature are
great. We are all humble. We should be. The Soviet Union is
a major country. Why is it that the Soviet Union sees the
Arab point of view here—the African and Asian view? Oh,
they are playing politics with the Africans and the Asians, it
might be said, and not only in this matter, There is the
question of Rhodesia and the question of South Africa and
other questions. We are told that the Soviet Union is fishing
in troubled waters. Whose waters? Our waters. Who is
muddying our waters in the Eastern Mediterranean basin?
Those European Zionists. Forget that they are Zionists
—those Europeans who came into our area. It is not the
Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is not muddying the
Eastern Mediterranean basin.

38. Now, regardless of the interests that the great Powers
have—and, no doubt, the Soviet Union has certain interests
in the area; after all, the Middle East is nearer to the Soviet
Union than the United States or, for that matter, the
United Kingdom. Leaving ideologies aside, the Soviet Union
is a major Power and, for reasons of its own, it is
concerning itself with the area. Now, I am beginning to
believe that the Soviet Uhion has a better understanding of
our area because it is an Asian country aside from being a
European country also. Let us remember that! It is also an
Asian country. It understands us perhaps better than our
friends across the seas in the United States or the United
Kingdom, or at least it is trying to understand vs.

39. Mr. Yost mentioned this morning—and I am paraphrasing what he said—that if the intrusions, the guerrilla
warfare, were taken into consideration in the draft resolution, then the United States would be in a better position
to vote. There is this question of equation, of evenhandedness, this new usage by the United States which is
now gaining currency in the United Nations as if the destiny of people can be weighed in the scales.

40, This reminds me of a tale that comes from the desert,
since Mr. Tekoah cites proverbs. I would cali them Semitic
proverbs; they are not Zionist proverbs. The attitude of the
United States reminds me of the bedouin who had a camel
which he loved very much. Not because it was a beast of
burden, but because he could use its milk—it was a she
camel—and he could use its wool for his garb. People get
fond of their animals, as the Arabs get fond of their horses
which are like members of the family, and so are camels.
That camel got sick, so sick that the bedouin was afraid
that it would die. So he took a vow and said: “Oh, God, if
you spare my camel, to show you that I am not using it for
my own purpose only, I will sell it for a rial”—which is, let
us say, a dollar. God so willed that the camel regained its
health, and the bedouin, the cameltier, was in a dither.
What to do now? After all, he thought he would be losing
his camel; what should he do with it? So he went to one of
those “clever guys’, as the Americans would call them,
and he said: “Get me out of this fix.” So he told him what
to do. He said: “Take the camel to the market place and
say that you will sell it for a dollar.” So he took the camel
to the market place and began to shout: “My camel for a
dollar.” Of course, there were many who came and
examined the camel and found that it was healthy and in
good condition and there was a clamour to buy the camel.
So he said: “I won't sell it except with a tom cat” which he
produced from a bag and tied to the tail of the camel. And
they said: “All right, we will buy it with the tom cat.” He
said: “The camel goes for one dollar and the tom cat for
$999.00, and I don’t sell them except together.”

41. Mr. Yost wants to put a tom cat into this draft
resolution. He will vote for it if the tom cat is tied to the
tail of the camel. Although there was no tom cat with the
previous resolutions, the United States delegation—I believe
it was Mr. Ball-voted for the condemnation. This is a

reversal of the position of the United States, I am sorry to
say.

42. Well, I do not blame Mr. Tekoah for his cynical
attitude. I watched here— we have been sitting here since
3.30-how everybody went to Mr. Tekoah instead of
Mr. Tekoah going to the big Powers. Would this formula,
this comma, this new wording please him? Nothing pleases
him. Why should it in view of what appeared in The New
York Times of this morning! Some no doubt Jewish
organization, or one with Zionist leanings gave a peer of the
British Empire, or rather of the United Kingdom, none
other than C.P. Snow, an honorary degree yesterday. He is
a lord; he is supposed to be a Liberal, Here they have this
picture in The New York Times of today, stating that
“C.P. Snow says Jews’ success could be genetic superiority.” The article reads: “C.P. Snow, the British author
and physicist, said yesterday that he was prepared to
believe that Jews are genetically superior to other people.”

43. Why should such statements not go to Mr. Tekoah’s
head and to Israel’s head? I know that the noble lord is a
physicist. Since when was he a genetician? He must be a
phony. A physicist is a physicist, Since when was he an
anthropologist? This must have pleased the Zionist organization which conferred on Lord Snow an honorary degree.
It says here, according to the The New York Times of
1 April 1969 (page 37):

“Lord Snow, who was awarded an honorary degree of
Doctor of Humane Letters at the ceremonies last night,
discussed the content of his speech during a news
conference earlier in the day.”

“One would like to know more about the Jewish
gene-pool, he said in his speech.”

44, And then he says here in a Founders’ Day address at
the New York School of Hebrew Union College-Jewish
Institute of Religion, at 40 West 68th Street, that: “The
record is remarkable, and quite outside any sort of
statistical probabilities.”

45. When the correspondents asked him what about the
Negro—it seems that there is a certain self-styled genetician
in California who said that the Negro has a low intelligence
—he did not dare to say anything about the Negro. C.P.
Snow, his lordship, dodged the issue. At the news conference he declined to discuss the Negro or the theory of a
leading educational psychologist, Arthur Jensen of the
University of California, Berkeley, who has maintained that
intelligence is largely hereditary and cannot be altered
significantly by environment.

46. 1 do not know whether Rosenberg or the racists of
Hitlers day could have gone further than Mr. Snow, just
because he received a strip of paper, an honorary degree.

47, Of course, many of the Jews are intelligent because
they had a challenge; they were a minority. Usually
minorities have a challenge. And they have done well, and
more glory to the individuals who work to excel, whether
they be Jews or gentiles. The Parsees in India were a
minority; that is why many of the Parsees are successful.
But Mr. Snow, his lordship, wants to remind us that the
Jews are a superior race. What next? The chosen people of
God. What a discriminator God must be! This shows the
power of Zionism, If they do not brainwash the scholars,
they give them an honorary degree to be on their side. What
a shame!

48. But do not let me give the impression that I am casting
a slur against the British. The British have been known
throughout their history for independent personalities
amongst them; and here a couple of legislators, Members of
Parliament, have made a study recently which appeared in
The New York Times. 1 should say in The Times of
London: The New York Times would not publish it. I have
this article thanks to my colleague from Kuwait who gave
me a transcript of what these two members of Parliament
said, I believe I should equate—to be even-handed—what
Lord Snow said on the one hand with the two legislators,
members of Parliament, They are Dennis Walters and Ian
Gilmour who recently published an article in The Times of
London of 1 February 1969 entitled “Last Peace Chance in
Middle East”. 1 quote:

“Their thesis was that President Johnson failed to see
that ‘unswerving support for Israel not only sabotaged
Western influence in the Arab World, but by weakening
the moderates in Israel made an accommodation with the
Arabs far less likely’; and they stressed that a new
approach and a new initiative towards the Palestine
Problem by President Nixon was required urgently. if
there was to be any hope of a negotiated settlement, and
that unless there was a radical change in the US policy,
war would inevitably come again, with consequent
further immense damage to Western interests in the Arab
World.”

They are pragmatic Members of the British Parliament, And
here they go on to say:

“The deplorable conditions under which the Palestinians live in refugee camps in exile or under Israeli
occupation, are such that they feel they have little else to
lose but their lives, and these they are prepared to
sacrifice.”

These are not my words, Sir, these are the words of two
Members of Parliament who went to the Middle East and
made a study of this situation. They go on to say:

“The Guerrilla movement, which has begun to gain such
momentum, recognizes no frontiers; thus, the authors of
the article reasoned that an acceptable settlement is
imperative now, with Israel realizing that ‘whatever her
frontiers, she can only be secure if she is accepted by the
Arabs, and she will only be accepted if she comes to

9

terms with the Palestinians’.

This is not Baroody speaking. They are two Members of the
British Parliament who made a first-hand study of the
situation and they tell us what they think.

49. We have been accustomed to hearing Mr. Tekoah
quote from many newspapers and magazines. I am not
going to prolong my statement by using all the material

that I have before me. Recently a very well-studied article
appeared in the French press. It appeared in Le Nouvel
Observateur in Paris and was by Jean Danie] who visited
Gaza, Palestine, so-called Israel, the occupied territories and
adjacent territories. Here he tells us something very
significant to show that the Jewish youth in Israel is
awakening, This is from Mr. Daniel’s article:

“There were Jewish students—the students who invited
me to talk with them not only let me say what I thought,
even though it upset some of them; they themselves
denounced anti-Arabism, expansionism, and the desperate
falling-back on America as an ally with a vigour that I
wish I could communicate here.”

They must have used some very strong words which the
author does not want to mention. I repeat: “they themselves denounced anti-Arabism, expansionism and the desperate falling-back on America as an ally.”

50. We do not want America to be our ally, We do not
want the Soviet Union to be our ally. We do not want
France to be our ally. We do not want the United Kingdom
to be our ally. All we are asking is justice, in accordance
with the purposes and principles of the Charter, for the
Palestinian people—who happen to be Arab. But even if
they were not Arabs, being our neighbours we would still
ask that justice be done unto them. This is all we are asking
here. Is that unreasonable? We do not want to destroy the
Jews. The Jews came and destroyed the Palestinians. We
never thought of destroying anybody in recent times.
Maybe we had wars at the height of our empire—and our
empire fell when it became decadent like other empires fell
when they became decadent. But we are Arab peoples. We
want to live at peace with Jew and gentile. And here
Mr. Tekoah comes and says, “They are destroying my
people.” Who is destroying whom? Those eastern European Zionists and central European Zionists came to
destroy the Palestinian people; otherwise there would be no
trouble.

51. Look at, the noble spirit of one of the Palestinian
freedom fighters, none other than the chief of one of the
organizations called El Fatah. I think his declaration should
be in the records of the Security Council. I am taking it
from that article by that liberal Jew, Jean Daniel, from
whom I have been quoting, who visited Israel and the Arab
lands quite recently—and, as I mentioned, his article
appeared in Le Nouvel Observateur in France. This is a
translation. I am quoting the words of Yasir Arafat so that
you may know the noble spirit of those freedom fighers:

“We say to the meeting of the big Powers: let them
decide what they wish. The Palestine people have made
their own decision, and this springs from the gun. This
concept is the only one which the world understands, be
it in Asia, Latin America or Africa—imperialism understands only this language.”

“We call for the establishment of an Arab Palestinian
State in which there would be justice, freedom and
equality for anyone who wants to live in it, whether
Moslem, Christian or Jew. There would be no place for
malice or fanaticism”-no place for malice or fanat-
icism—“in that Arab State which would be established by
the Palestinian revolution.”

Now, this is a Palestinian talking: no malice or fanaticism;
and with Jew living by the side of the Arab, whether he be
Christian or Moslem.

52. King Faisal, the King of Saudi Arabia, is a man who is
very circumspect and does not talk very much. Perhaps that
is why he appointed me to the United Nations here, to
make up for his reticence. It is good to have a little
humorous relief from the tragedy. To go back to Shakespeare, with the exception of Macbeth, we find humorous
relief in the three tragedies of Hamlet, King Lear and
Othello. Macbeth gives one a headache because it has no
humorous relief. Even the laughter I hear here is at my
expense. I don’t mind.

53. Not very long ago, at a banquet given by His Majesty
King Faisal in Mecca for notable pilgrims on Dhul Hijah 6,
1388 Al-Higra—which corresponds to 23 February 1969—
His Majesty was very explicit—and I shall be happy to
send to members of the Council, and especially to the
major Powers, copies of that speech, which has been
translated into English. Incidentally, this year we have had
370,000 pilgrims, from the four corners of the earth, who
visited Mecca. I must say, there were many thousands from
the Soviet Union, which is always maligned for suppressing
religion. If the Government does not want to believe, that is
its privilege. In the Koran we have a verse which says: ‘La
ikraha fid-din”—*“There is no compulsion in religion.” I
think, in a way, without knowing it, the Russians are
Moslems—even the Soviets—because if anybody wants to go
to El Haj, they let him go. There are many Russian
Moslems.

54. His Majesty King Faisal, in addressing that convocation of El Haj, the pilgrimage of Mecca, said the following:

“I do not have, dear brothers, to explain what goes on
at the Third Holy Mosque and the First Qiblah of
Islam™—in Jerusalem—“from violation of the sanctities to
the abuse of dignity and morality. They” —meaning the
Zionists— ‘have gone too far by committing immoral acts
and disgraceful deeds inside the walls of the Mosque and
in the places of worship . . .

“Dear brothers, what are we waiting for? Shall we wait
for the world conscience to do anything? Where is the
conscience that can see, hear and feel such atrocities and
contempts committed openly in front of everybody? The
conscience has not been aroused or even showed any
regret towards such crimes and violations. If they are not
ashamed before God, at least they should be ashamed
before mankind. In spite of all this, we notice that the
aggressors receive support on many occasions for their
tyranny and offences.

“Dear brothers,”—he was addressing all Moslems, from
the four corners of the earth— “Jerusalem appeals to you
to rescue it from this tribulation . . .

“Dear Moslem brothers . .. I invoke God that He may
help me to die as a martyr . . . for the sake of Allah.

*...T cannot imagine our holy shrines being abused”
with our “sanctities.

“I do not want to talk about something else ... All
others matters are secondary in contrast with the defence
of our creed, holy shrines, freedom and dignity . . .

“...We hope that by the grace of God we will meet
again next year after the traces of the treacherous
aggression are eliminated, the Holy Places are liberated
and our brothers the citizens of our dear Palestine are free
once more in their own country .. .”.

Those are the words of His Majesty King Faisal to the world
Moslem community.

55. The West may think that the world Moslem community now is weak. They do not have atomic bombs; they do
not have the technology of warfare. But certain Western
Powers are sowing the seeds of hatred, perhaps unwittingly,
and there shall be a collision again between the. West and
East—this time a collision which indeed may lead to the
blowing up of the whole world, because it is within the
power of Israel to start a third world war. Having
permeated the Governments and legislative bodies of many
Western countries, they wield power and think that our
area is their own preserve,

56. The hour is late. If I have spoken so long it is to
remind the members of the Council that this is very serious
business indeed. I need hardly refer you to the document
circulated by my colleague from Jordan yesterday, which
has pictures of the victims of the last assault by Israel on his
country. I do not want to point out any particular picture.
These pictures are more eloquent than words, and I am sure
my colleague from Jordan, and every Arab, would deplore
the inhumanity of man to man, even if the victims
happened, in reverse, to be Jews.

57. We are not in the area to kill the Jews; we have
protected them tnroughout our history. It is this European
intrusion into our midst that is causing all the trouble, and
ironically it is supported by certain Europeans and a
projection of European civilization, or the lack of it, by one
of the two most powerful States in the world, the United
States, with whom we have always had friendly relations,
with whom we have mutual interests. We are indeed
confused as to why the United States and its supporters
should encourage an alien people in our midst to cause all
this trouble and tribulation. We hope that it will be guided
in its own wisdom to advise Israel that if it wants peace it
should live at peace with the Palestinians under a Palestinian flag which would have under it Jew and Palestinian,
regardless of religion, living like brothers side by side.

58. The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Saudi
Arabia for his over-generous compliments.

59. The next speaker on my list is the representative of
Israel.

60. Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): It is with regret that I ask for
the floor at this hour in order to exercise my right of reply.
The representative of the USSR, however, has left me no
choice. Slanderous and malevolent as was the statement
made this morning by the Soviet representative, it had one
virtue. It left no doubt at all about the Soviet Union’s
destructive policy on the Middle East situation. To glorify
the murder of Jews and to try to justify and thereby
encourage such murder by assimilating Jews to Nazis is a
gory demonstration of the role the USSR is playing and
apparently intends to play in respect of the Israel-Arab
conflict. World opinion rejects with utter disgust Arab
terror warfare against the men, women and children of
Israel. The Soviet Union approves of it.

61. World opinion, associations of anti-Nazi freedom
fighters, leading humanitarians, even certain communist
parties, condemn with indignation all comparison between
Arab terror organizations and anti-Nazi freedom fighters.
The Soviet Union. hails these terror organizations and the
Soviet representative is even ready to call on the name of
Allah in his support for this criminal method of aggression.
Let the world have no doubt what the Soviet Union thus
supports. It supports bombs in civilian buses, explosives in
supermarkets, dynamite charges in university cafeterias,
mines in school courtyards. It supports a movement whose
proclaimed objective is the destruction of Israel, the
annihilation of its people, the torpedoing of all efforts to
establish peace between Israel and the Arab States. Yasir
Arafat, the El Fatah leader, described on 5 June 1968 as his
organization’s objective the liquidation of Israeli existence.

62. The Soviet position was expressed without any embellishment in a recent article that appeared in Pravda on 27
February 1969, defending the terrorist attack on an Israeli
civil passenger aircraft at the Zurich airport. The entire
civilized world had expressed its horror at this wanton
attack against innocent men, women and children in a
neutral country. The Secretary-General of the United
Nations had called it a dastardly and criminal act which
Governments and peoples, regardless of their political
views, must condemn. Instead of heeding the Secretary-Generals call to all Governments to take all possible
measures to prevent any repetition of those acts, the Soviet
Union glamourizes them and in fact calls for more. It is this
Power that claims for itself the right to give advice on
Israel’s vital interests, on Israel’s quest for peace and
security. It is this Power that expects the world to consider
it as a contributor to understanding, to justice and to peace
in the Middle East. Surely there is a limit to credulity and
illogic.

63. Only four days ago on 27 March 1969, the organ of
the Czechoslovak Writers’ Union, Listy, published an
editorial in which it expressed deep understanding for the
situation Israel finds itself in confronting as it does
continuous Arab aggression. It said that Israel must make
sure that the Arabs do not succeed in their designs against
Israel. Israel must win, said Listy, to avoid a super-pogrom
by the Arabs. The Arabs do not take prisoners, it
continued, and the Israelis have nowhere to retreat. The
writer of the editorial who had visited Israel declared:

“Almost every second person to whom I spoke carried
on his arm the brand mark of a German concentration
camp. Others have lost their father or mother. It may be
well to remind you that Jews have been systematically

murdered over the last 2,000 years. The Jews do not want
war but if it is imposed on them they must not fail to
win. Think of this during the next few days, at least fora
moment,”

the Czech editorial concludes, Perhaps the representative of
the Soviet Union as well will think of this in the next few
days.

64. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of the
Soviet Union on a point of order.

65. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(translated from Russian): The Israel representative’s reaction to my statement seems to show that I have scored a
hit. Meanwhile, the question is quite clear. The growth of
popular resistance in the Arab territories seized by Israel
results from the invaders’ continuing occupation of those
territories and the outrages they have committed.

66. After the troops have been withdrawn and a political
settlement achieved, this question will automatically disappear from the agenda. In my opinion it would be as well
if the Israeli representative took note of this elementary
truth, pondered over it in the next few days, and replied to
the Security Council whether Israel is in favour of a
peaceful political settlement, of refraining from the preventive destruction of populated areas and dwellings in the
Arab States. I drew this parallel because I, my family and
my people suffered the destruction of our homes and
dwellings by an enemy invader and this method is a
Hitlerite method, and whether you like it or not, no
impassioned oratory here can dispute that fact. It is
confirmed by The New York Times, and the Jordan
representative also spoke of this today.

67. Do you really think that this policy can win the
respect of the world, the Security Council and the United
Nations? Do you really think this policy is conducive to a
peaceful settlement in the Near East? Of course not. That
is what you should ponder over in the next few days,
Mr. Tekoah.

68. Mr. TURBAY AYALA (Colombia) (translated from
Spanish): My delegation wishes to associate itself with

those many representatives of the various States members -

of the Security Council who have welcomed you with such
pleasure and sympathy as President of the Council for this
month.

69. I should also like to express on behalf of my
delegation our sincere congratulations and thanks to your
predecessor Ambassador Csatorday, who truly discharged
his duties in the best possible manner.

70. I do not propose to make any extensive statement
today on the Middle East question, because I expressed my
Government’s views on the subject last week /[I469th
meeting] . Today, also in accordance with instructions from
my chancellery, I am to confine myself to the item under
discussion. I must deplore that the efforts made by various
delegations, including Colombia’s, have failed to produce a
general agreement in the Security Council concerning the
draft resolution which should bring this debate to a normal
conclusion.
71. Nevertheless, it is well for us to point out that we have
failed to agree, not because anyone has refused to condemn
the reprehensible attack by the Israel Air Force on the civil
population of Jordan, but because the sponsors of the draft
resolution before us considered it impossible to agree to the
inclusion in the operative part of their draft of a new
paragraph deploring all the other violations of the ceaseire.

72. It is not that we want to make any capricious
references to non-existent violations, because the draft
resolution of Pakistan, Senegal and Zambia recognizes in its
preamble that “numerous premeditated violations of the
cease-fire have occurred”.

73. We ourselves cannot understand why the sponsors of
the draft resolution should refuse to include in the
operative part of their text a new paragraph. deploring the
many violations which both they and we know have
occurred in the Middle East.

74. For the Colombian delegation that is a fundamental
point, for we consider that the Security Council is bound to
condemn all violations, wherever they originate. To adopt
any other course might give the absurd impression that the
Security Council, by its silence, encourages certain threats
to peace.

75. There may still be time for the representatives of
Pakistan, Senegal and Zambia to reconsider their rejection
of our suggestion and enable the resolution to be adopted
unanimously. It should not be forgotten that the need to
preserve the unity of the Security Council was. never greater
than now.

76. My delegation would have to abstain in the vote if the
sponsors insisted on retaining the present wording of the
draft resolution. Of course we deplore the absence of the
general agreement which, in the honourable company of
many other delegations, we have desired and sought. If the
unity of the Security Council on this important question is
broker, we shall be able to say that the breach occurred not
because of any intransigence of ours despite our obvious
readiness to compromise.

77. Mr. JAKOBSON (Finland): Mr. President, I am happy
to join those who have already welcomed you as President
of the Security Council. My delegation welcomes you as the
representative of a country which, though far from ours, is
not so far away at all in its general outlook on international
relations.

78. 1 also would like to join in paying tribute to last
month’s President, Ambassador Csatorday of Hungary, who
conducted the business of the Council with his customary
skill and curtesy.

79. In my statement of 28 March [1468th meeting] , 1 said
that in the view of my delegation the Security Council
cannot accept as valid any argument put forward to justify
unilateral military action that constitutes a breach of the
cease-fire established in the Middle East. It follows that we
believe that the Council must condemn the recent attacks
launched by Israel on Jordanian villages in violation of the

cease-fire resolutions. We condemn these attacks all the
more emphatically as it appears that the Israeli planes
struck down unarmed civilians.

80. I also said in my previous statement that the Israeli
attack cannot be considered in isolation. It must be
examined in the context of continuous violence prevailing
in the Middle East, The draft resolution submitted by
Pakistan, Senegal and Zambia in its original form recognized this in that it contained the observation that
numerous premeditated violations of the cease-fire occurred.

81. My delegation believed all along that having made that
observation, the Council should not fail to condemn all
violent incidents that have taken place in violation of the
cease-fire, as has been done in past resolutions unanimously
adopted by the Council, for instance, in resolution
236 (1967), which is recalled in the draft resolution before
us and which condemns any and all violations of the
cease-fire.

82, In the consultations that preceded this meeting, my
delegation made some. suggestions, as did several other
delegations, to make the draft take account of that basic
point. The sponsors gave those suggestions full and sympathetic consideration, and I wish to express to them our
appreciation. The revisions introduced by the representative
of Pakistan go a long way towards meeting the basic point
raised by my delegation. By reaffirming in its first
operative paragraph, resolution 248 (1968), the Council
will implicitly deplore all violent incidents in violation of
the cease-fire.

83. 1 realize that this revision is not likely to satisfy all the
members of the Council. This is regrettable, for failure to
reach unanimity cannot but weaken the impact of Council
pronouncements on the course of events in the area. This
failure is all the more regrettable at this moment in view of
the forthcoming four-Power talks on the question of the
Middle East.

84, The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of
Finland for his kind words.

85. Mr, CSATORDAY (Hungary): Mr. President, first of
all 1 wish to express my heartfelt thanks to all those
representatives who commented in a very friendly and
alltoo-generous way on my activities as President of the
Security Council during the month of March. In serving this
august body I tried to use the available means to promote
understanding and to enhance the implementation of the
lofty principles embodied in the United Nations Charter.
And that will be my guideline in the future too.

86. The debate that has taken place in the Security
Council, at the initiative of Jordan, regarding the Israeli air
attack of 26 March on civilian objectives in Jordan has
confirmed our conviction that the attack was a premeditated and deliberate violation of the cease-fire.

87. The representative of Israel in his interventions has
only underlined that his country is determined to act in
complete disregard of earlier Council resolutions and the
pi.visions of the Charter. It would have been difficult for
him not to do so. In fact, as it has been reported in the
American press, the Defence Minister of Israel did not
hesitate to reaffirm that Israel will continue its air attacks
against Jordanian territory. Seldom has aggression been so
openly elevated to the rank of official Government policy.

88. The Council thus has no alternative but to reaffirm its
earlier decisions and condemn this latest manifestation of
Israeli belligerency.

89, There is no doubt in our mind that Council actions
would now be called for, in view of the dangers inherent in
these attacks and of the repeated refusal of Israel to abide
by the decisions of the Council. It is, however, common
knowledge that certain members of the Council are still
reluctant to face up to their responsibilities in this regard,
and for that reason the sponsors of the draft resolution now
before us have been constrained to abandon envisaging such
actions at this point. Although the text thereby has lost
some of its effectiveness, it still contains condemnation of
the Israeli air attack entailing the loss of eighteen civilian
lives, injuries to others and considerable loss of property.

90. It is for that reason that my delegation has decided to
cast its vote in favour of the draft resolution.

91. We have also been motivated in our decision by the
conviction that the Council must be on record to disapprove the conduct of the Government of Israel at a time
when" that Government does everything to torpedo useful
initiatives in the service of a political settlement in the
Middle East. The Council must certainly show that it does
not approve the attempts of Israel to use its territorial
conquests in the wake of its aggressive war as a lever to
impose capitulation terms on the victims of its aggression.
The Council must also reject the plans of Israel to utilize its
military might to attain its conquests in the expectation of
the imposed settlement it obviously seeks in violation of
Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November
1967.

92. The PRESIDENT: There are no further representatives
who have indicated a wish to speak before the vote, and as
no other representative wishes to take the floor at this stage
the Council will now proceed to vote on the three-Power
draft resolution /$/9120/Rev.1].

A vote was taken by show of hands.

In favour: Algeria, China, Finland, France, Hungary,
Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal, Spain, Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, Zambia.
~ Against: None.

Abstaining: Colombia, Paraguay, United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of

America.

The draft resolution was adopted by 11 votes to none,
with 4 abstentions.?

2 See resolution 265 (1969).

10

93. The PRESIDENT: I now call on the representative of
the United Kingdom who has asked to be allowed to
explain his vote after the vote.

94. Sir Leslie GLASS (United Kingdom): Mr. President,
my delegation is greatly saddened by what seems to us to
have been an unnecessary division in the vote of this
Council. Our unanimity has been breached over what seem
to us comparatively reconcilable points. We seemed to have
got so close to agreement that the final breakdown is
doubly disappointing.

95. My delegation sincerely wished to vote for the draft
resolution with the general wording of which I have twice
declared our agreement. The one condition on which our
vote was predicated seemed to us, in the light of the actual
situation in the Middle East, a conditicn based on practical
and reasonable grounds.

96. The resolution itself observes that numerous premeditated violations of the cease-fire have occurred. All we
asked was the logical consequence of this observation—that
is to say, one short sentence, somewhere in the resolution
which deplored all violations of that cease-fire resolution
which the Council itself had passed. The condition was not
met, and because of this omission, and not because of any
wording in the resolution itself, we had reluctantly to
abstain.

97. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of
Israel.

98. Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): The resolution adopted by the
Security Council is one-sided. It is inequitable. It ignores
basic established facts. It is therefore no contribution to
ensuring tranquillity or to the advance of peace in the area.
Arab terror organizations try to kill not only civilian
Israelis, but also the cease-fire, and they undermine the
prospects of peace in the Middle East. The identification of
Arab Governments with terror warfare is contrary to the
cease-fire, the 22 November 1967 resolution of the Security
Council, and the United Nations Charter.

99. The resolutions disregard for this fact is incomprehensible. The reaffirmation of resolutions 248 (1968) and
256 (1968), which declared that grave violations of the
cease-fire cannot be tolerated and that all violent incidents
and other violations of the cease-fire should be prevented, is
inadequate. The pursuance of Arab terror warfare endangers the peace-making efforts. It must be condemned with
full force. We note with appreciation the position of those
members of the Security Council who called for such
condemnation and refused to give support to the resolution.

100. Israel’s policy will remain based on readiness to
conduct negotiations with each one of the neighbouring
States for the purpose of concluding peace treaties;
co-operation with Ambassador Jarring, within the framework of the 22 November 1967 resolution; observance of
the ceasefire on the basis of reciprocity; self-defence
against armed attacks.

101. The PRESIDENT: I now call on the representative of
Jordan.
102. Mr. EL-FARRA (Jordan): We are grateful to all
members of the Security Council who gave full consideration to the numerous premeditated Israeli violations of the
cease-fire which my delegation enumerated both in its
complaint and its opening statement.

103. The outgoing President, Ambassador Csatorday,
deserves our respect and admiration. His wisdom, statesmanship, ability and impartiality were clearly manifested
during the first phase of our deliberations. To him we offer
our gratitude and respect.

104. We are grateful to the Council members for condemning in clear terms and in an unambiguous manner the
most recent premeditated air attack launched by Israel on
Jordanian villages and populated areas in flagrant violation
of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions. In the resolution just adopted, the Council warns
once again that if such attacks were to be repeated it would
meet to consider further effective steps, as envisaged in the
Charter, to ensure against repetition of such attacks. We
hope that this will be the last warning given to Israel.

105. We are grateful to the Council for rejecting the Israeli
allegations and the so-called counter-complaint, which were
intended to confuse the issue. The Israeli representative
failed to convince the Council that resistance and the fight
against foreign occupiers amount to terrorism. All members
of the Council called on the Israelis to avoid indiscriminate
attacks against civilian centres and all other violations of
the cease-fire resolutions. The Council rejected the use of
force.

106. Members emphasized that brutal force was used
against innocent civilians near Es-Salt, on 26 March, in a
clear breach of the cease-fire. They referred to previous
cease-fire violations, which were mentioned time and again
in every statement made by my delegation. They all
referred with regret to nineteen civilian citizens of Jordan
killed by the Israeli attack and to the twenty-five injured.
They cited the fact that the targets hit were essentially
civilian habitations.

107. We are grateful to all members who voted for this
resolution. They emphasized the fact that these Israeli
attacks spread the ravages of war and destruction in a
country which had already suffered cruelly.

108. [It is true that the Security Council condemnation fell
short of our expectations, but whether the Council will
reiterate this again in the future depends on how far Israeli
aggression will be accommodated. We have just heard
Mr. Tekoah, one second after the adoption of the resolution, describe the resolution as one-sided. When it is
adopted unanimously, it is one-sided—like the one of last
August and the one of last March, both of which I am glad
to see incorporated in the first paragraph of the resolution
just adopted. Those two resolutions were called one-sided?
The one just adopted by 11 votes is also called one-sided?
The one on Jerusalem with 99 votes is one-sided? The one
on the humanitarian aspect of the problem adopted by all
members of the Council was called one-sided. It is one-sided
because the thinking is one-sided. It is a one-tract mind. It
is a thinking which calls for change of behaviour, change of

11

mind and heart. To think that the whole world is wrong
and only Israel is right certainly indicates something wrong.
It is certainly something that calls for reconsideration of
the attitude, of the thinking, of the Israelis. If it is a
question of the gentile always being wrong and the Israeli
always being right, then I can understand why the Israelis
should have a veto on every stand taken by the Security
Council, then I can understand why Mrs. Meir, the Prime
Minister, would come and tell the whole world “We should
debate the debates of the Security Council” and that the
Security Council itself and the United Nations in general
should be debated in the Knesset. Israeli arrogance should
have a limit, and only the Council can set that limit, and
only the Big Four can seriously look at the roots of the
problem and reach a just solution. But to keep the door
open for the arrogance of Israel to call every single action
taken by this highest organ of the United Nations ‘“‘onesided” is unfortunate, to say the least. It does not show
hope for peace, real peace based on justice.

109. I think that this attitude—not our insisting on having
a fair resolution reflecting the reality of the situation—or
this arrogance of Israel should cause the Big Four to ponder
on what they should do, and not try to have an
even-handed resolution on a clear-cut case of aggression. I
would be unfair to my people, to the memory of the dead,
if I were to compromise their rights for the sake of so-called
even-handedness.

110. I know the hour is late, and there is no need for me
to continue, I shall merely say one final thing on this
question.

111. I think that if we want a real peace, the way to peace
is there. For the Israelis to have peace, they must honour
their past obligations, their past commitments, given to this
high organ of the United Nations. Before seeking new
commitments let them abide by the old commitments; then
they will show that they are for peace. But so far, their
behaviour has been one of war, and they have been
receiving some accommodation from friends of Israel.

112. The PRESIDENT: I call upon the representative of
Israel.

113. Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): It is odd to hear the representative of Jordan questioning the one-sidedness of a resolution that is one-sided. One-sidedness is determined by the
contents of a resolution, not by the number of votes that
support it. It is particularly odd for a representative of an
Arab country to question the right to declare this resolution one-sided, for there is an ancient Arab proverb, of
which the representative of Jordan is undoubtedly aware.
And the proverb says: He who has the truth is in the
majority, even though he be one.

114. The PRESIDENT: The representative of Jordan has
the floor.

115. Mr. EL-FARRA (Jordan): I was always under the
impression that when Members join the United Nations
they abide by the rule of the majority. I do not think that.
the whole Security Council is out of step but it is
Mr. Tekoah. I think that when Israel joined the United
Nations it did undertake to abide by the Charter, by the
rules of procedure, by the will of the United Natjons as
determined by the majority, whether a two-thirds or a
simple majority. But for Mr. Tekoah to tell the Council,
just after a decision has been taken by 11 votes, “This is
not binding, it is one-sided, as I*-Mr. Tekoah—‘see it”, is
wrong. The Security Council is saying that it is a resolution
reflecting what is needed. If the Council, in its wisdom,
found it right to adopt this resolution, the resolution is
binding.

116. Mr. Tekoah turned to another proverb. It will be
recalled that when we presented our complaint, Mr. Tekoah
told me that there was an Arab proverb saying, “You stay
in your house and I will stay in mine.” I have tried to find
out where his house is. In which part of the Arab area is his
house? Is it all the occupied werritories? 1 have never

12

received an answer, Is it the United Nations plan? 1
received no answer. The other area occupied in 19487 No
answer. Sinai included? I received no answer. Gaza? The
Golan Heights? The West Bank? Or the East Bank?

117. And now we have another proverb. I think that the
proverb which he never answered should be rephrased
according to the philosophy of Israel. It should not say:
“You stay in your house and I will stay in mine.” It should
be rephrased to say: “You stay in your house; I will stay in
your house also until you get out.” That is what they are
doing.

118. The PRESIDENT: This concludes the Council’s
consideration of the question before it.

The meeting rose at 8.10 p.m.
HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS

United Nations publications may be obtained from booksteres and distributors throughout
the world, Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York
or Geneva.

COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES

Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences
dépositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous auprés de votre librairie ou adressez-vous a:
Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou Genéve,

‘KAR AOJAYYKUTH USLAHUA OPFAHU3AUNU OBBLEAUHEHHBIX HAUKA

Magannn Oprausaanmn 06neamiennnx Hanmit yoo KyunTs B KUGKIRIX MAra3HUAX 1
ArenTeTHAX Bo Beex paitonax yupa, Hapognre ¢opanki of w3ZANMAX R RAWEM KHILKIOM
varaymme nam mpumre uo axpecey: Oprawnsagmn Odveymuennmx Hampi, Cexnnn mo
upoxaxe mygaunit, Hewo-Tfopk wm Henepa.

COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS

Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estén en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras
en todas partes del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijuse a: Naciones Unidas, Seccién de
Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra.

Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 0.50 (or equivalent in other currencies) 82050—November 1972-2,050

Voting Summary
Yes: 011 | No: | Abstentions: 004 | Non-Voting: | Total voting membership:
Y ALGERIA
Y CHINA
A COLOMBIA
Y FINLAND
Y FRANCE
Y HUNGARY
Y NEPAL
Y PAKISTAN
A PARAGUAY
Y SENEGAL
Y SPAIN
Y USSR
A UNITED KINGDOM
A UNITED STATES
Y ZAMBIA