Security Council resolution 259 (1968) [on the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel]
Symbol: S/RES/259(1968)
Date: 1968-09-27
Meeting record: S/PV.1454
Subjects: UN. Special Representative [for the Arab Territories under Military Occupation by Israel]|TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL|MIDDLE EAST SITUATION
Notes: Concerns the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel.
In: Resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, 1968. - S/INF/23/Rev.1. - 1970. - p. 11. - (SCOR, 23rd year).

Resolution 259 (1968)
of 27 September 1968

The Security Council,
Concerned with the safety, welfare and security of
the inhabitants of the Arab territories under military
occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June

Recalling its resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967,

Noting the report by the Secretary-General, contained in document S/8699, 37 and appreciating his efforts in this connexion,

Deploring the delay in the implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being
set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of
the Secretary-General,

1. Requests the Secretary-General urgently to dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories
under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967, and to report on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967) ;

2. Requests the Government of Israel to receive the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General, to co-operate with him and to facilitate his work;

3. Recommends that the Secretary-General be afforded all co-operation in his efforts to bring about the
implementation of the present resolution and resolution
237 (1967).

Adopted at the 1454th meeting by 12 votes to none, with
3 abstentions (Canada, Denmark, United States of
America).

37 Ibid.

Texto español (official Spanish version): tes de Jordania, Israel y la República Arabe Unida
a participar, sin voto, en la discusión del tema titulado:
“La situación en el Oriente Medio: Carta, de fecha 17
de septiembre de 1968, dirigida al Presidente del Consejo de Seguridad por los Representantes del Paquistán
y Senegal (S/8819)”36,

En su 1454a. sesión, celebrada el 27 de septiembre
de 1968, el Consejo decidió invitar al representante
de Siria a participar, sin voto, en la discusión de la
cuestión,

Resolución 259 (1968)

de 27 de septiembre de 1968

El Consejo de Seguridad,

Preocupado por la seguridad, el bienestar y la protección de los habitantes de los territorios árabes ocupados militarmente por Israel después de las hostilidades del 5 de junio de 1967,

Recordando su resolución 237 (1967), de 14 de
junio de 1967,

Tomando nota del informe del Secretario General
contenido en el documento S/86997 y apreciando sus
esfuerzos en esta cuestión,

Deplorando el retraso en la aplicación de la resolución 237 (1967), debido a las condiciones que aún
pone Israel para recibir a un representante especial del
Secretario General,

1. Pide al Secretario General que envíe urgentemente un representante especial a los territorios árabes
ocupados militarmente por Israel después de las hostilidades del 5 de junio de 1967, y que presente un
informe sobre la aplicación de la resolución 237
(1967);

2. Pide al Gobierno de Israel que reciba al representante especial del Secretario General, colabore con
él y facilite su tarea;

3. Recomienda que el Secretario General reciba
amplia cooperación en sus esfuerzos conducentes a la
aplicación de la presente resolución y de la resolución
237 (1967).

Aprobada en la 1454a. sesión
por 12 votos contra ninguno y
3 abstenciones (Canadá, Dinamarca, Estados Unidos de Amé-
rica).

Decisiones

En su 1456a. sesión, celebrada el 1% de noviembre
de 1968, el Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes de la República Arabe Unida, Israel y Arabia Sau-

35 Ibid.
37 Ibid.

12

dita a participar, sin voto, en la discusión del tema
titulado:

“La situación en el Oriente Medio:

“a) Carta, de fecha 19 de noviembre de 1968, dirigida al Presidente del Consejo de Seguridad
por el Representante Permanente de la Repú-
blica Arabe Unida ante las Naciones Unidas
(S/8878)3*;

“b) Carta, de fecha 1% de noviembre de 1968, dirigida al Presidente del Consejo de Seguridad
por el Representante Permanente de Israel ante
las Naciones Unidas (S/8879)”8,

En su 1460a. sesión, celebrada el 29 de diciembre
de 1968, el Consejo decidió invitar a los Representantes del Líbano e Israel a participar, sin voto, en la
discusión del tema titulado:

“La situación en el Oriente Medio:

“a) Carta, de fecha 29 de diciembre de 1968, dirigida al Presidente del Consejo de Seguridad
por el Representante Permanente del Líbano
(S/8945)3;

“b) Carta, de fecha 29 de diciembre de 1968, dirigida al Presidente del Consejo de Seguridad
por el Representante Permanente interino de
Israel (S/8946)”3.

En su 1461a. sesión, celebrada el 30 de diciembre
de 1968, el Consejo decidió invitar al Representante
de la Arabia Saudita a participar, sin voto, en la discusión de la cuestión.

Resolución 262 (1968)

de 31 de diciembre de 1968

El Consejo de Seguridad,

Visto el orden del día que figura en el documento
S/Agenda/1462,

Habiendo tomado nota del contenido de la carta
del Representante Permanente del Líbano (documento
S/8945),

Habiendo tomado nota de la información suplementaria proporcionada por el Jefe de Estado Mayor del
Organismo de Vigilancia de la Tregua en Palestina,
contenida en los documentos S/7930/Add.107% y

Oídas las declaraciones del representante del Líbano
y del representante de Israel con respecto al grave
ataque perpetrado contra el Aeropuerto Internacional
civil de Beirut,

Observando que la acción militar de las fuerzas
armadas de Israel contra el Aeropuerto Internacional

1958 Ibid., Suplemento de octubre, noviembre y diciembre de
3 Ibid.
40 Ibid.

Texte français (official French version): date du 2 septembre 1968, adressée au Président du
Conseil de sécurité par le représeniant permanent par
intérim d'Israël (S/8794°*) ; Lettre, en date du $
septembre 1968, adressée au Président du Conseil de
sécurité par le représentant permanent d'Israël
(S/88053) ; Lettre, en date du 8 septembre 1968,
adressée au Président du Conseil de sécurité par le
représentant permanent de la République arabe unie
(S/8806)|, ayant entendu les rapports du général
Odd Bull présentés par le Secrétaire général et ayant
entendu les déclarations des représentants d'Israël et
de la République arabe unie, regrette profondément
les pertes en vies humaines et prie les parties d'observer strictement le cessez-le-feu demandé par les résolutions du Conseil de sécurité.”

Résolution 258 (1968)
du 18 septembre 1968

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Rappelant la déclaration du Président du Conseil de
sécurité en date du 9 septembre 1968, prononcée à la
1448° séance du Conseil,

Gravement préoccupé de la détérioration de la situation au Moyen-Orient,

Convaineu que tous les Membres de l'Organisation
des Nations Unies devraient coopérer en vue d’un
règlement pacifique au Moyen-Orient,

1. Insiste pour que ic cessez-le-feu ordonné par le
Conseil de sécurité dans ses résolutions soit rigouretsement respecté ;

2. Réaffirme sa résolution 242 (1967). du 22 novembre 1967, et prie instamment toutes les parties
d'apporter leur plus entière coopération au Représentant spécial du Secrétaire général dans l’accomplissement rapide du mandat qui lui a été confié par cette
résolution.

Adoptée à la 1452° séance
par 14 voix contre séro, avec
une abstention (Algérie).

Décisions

À sa 1453° séance, le 20 septembre 1968, le Conseil
æ décidé d'inviter les représentants de la Jordanie,
d'Israël et de la République arabe unie à participer,
sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question intitulée “La situation au Moyen-Orient : Lettre, en date
du 17 septembre 1968, adressée au Président du Conseil de sécurité par les représentants du Pakistan et du
Sénégal (S/881986)”.
35 Ibid.
86 Ibid.

A sa 1454° séance, le 27 septembre 1968, le Conseil
a décidé d'inviter le représentant de la Syrie à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

Résolution 259 (1968)
du 27 septembre 1968

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Soucieux de la sûreté, du hien-être ct de la sécurité
des habitants des territoires aralies milititrement occupés par Israël à la suite des hostilités du 5 juin 1967,

Rappelant sa résolution 237 (1907) du 14 juin 1907,

Notant le rapport du Secrétaire général contenu dans
le document S/8699*7 ct appréciant ses cfforts en cette
matière,

Déplorant le retard intervenu dans l'application de lu
résolution 237 (1967) en raison des conditions qui
continuent d'être posées par Israël pour recevoir un
représentant spécial du Secrétaire général,

1. Prie le Secrétaire général d'envoyer d'urgence un
représentant spécial dans les territoires arabes occupés
nulitairement par Israël à le suite des hostilités du
5 juin 1967, et de faire rapport sur la mise cn «œuvre
de la résolution 237 (1967):

2. Penrande au Gouvernement d'Israël de recevoir
le représentant spécial du Secrétaire général, de coopé-
rer avec lui et de faciliter sa tâche:

3. Reconmimande que le Secrétaire général reçoive
toute coopération dans ses efforts pour la mise en
ceuvre de fa présente résolution et de Ia résolution 237

(1967).

Adoptée à la 1151" séance
par 12 voir contre zéro, avce
> abstentions (Canada, Panemark, Etats-Unis d'Antérique).

Décisions

A sa 1456° séance, le 1 novembre 1968, le Conseil
a décidé d'inviter les représentants de la République
arabe unie, d’Israël et de l’Arabie Saoudite à participer,
sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question
intitulée :

“La situation au Moyen-Orient :

“a) Lettre, en date du 1° novembre 1908, adressée
au Président du Conseil de sécurité par le repré-
sentant permanent de la République arabe unie
auprès de l'Organisation des Nations Unies
(S/887858)

“pb) Lettre, en date du 1°" novembre 1908, adressée
au Président du Conseil de sécurité par le repré-
sentant permanent d'Israël auprès de l'Organisa-

tion des Nations Unies (S/887988)".

‘37 Ibid.
38 Thid., Supplément d'octobre, novembre et décembre 1968.

Русский текст (official Russian version): Решения

20 сентября 1968 года Совет на своем 1453-м заседании постановил
пригласить представителей Израиля, Иордании и Объединенной Арабской
Республики принять участие без права голоса в обсуждении вопроса, оза-
главленного "Положение на Ближнем Востоке: письмо представителей
Пакистана и Сенегала от 17 сентября 1968 года на имя Председателя
Совета Безопасности (8/8819) 56/".

27 сентября 1968 года Совет на своем 1454-м заседании постановил
пригласить представителя Сирии принять участие без права голоса в об-
суждении этого вопроса.

Резолюция 259 (1968)
от 27 сентября 1966 года

Совет Безопасности,

заботясь о сохранности, благополучии и безопасности жителей араб-
ских территорий, находящихся под военной оккупацией Израиля в резуль-
тате военных действий 5 июня 1967 года,

ссылаясь на свою резолюцию 257 от 14 июня 1967 года,

принимая во внимание доклад Генерального секретаря, содержащийся
в документе 58/5699 57/, и ценя его усилия в этом вопросе,

глубоко сожалея о задержке в выполнении резолюции 237 (1967),
происшедшей по причине условий, которые продолжает ставить Израиль для
принятия специального представителя Генерального секретаря,

1. просит Генерального секретаря послать в срочном порядке спе-
циального представителя в арабские территории, находящиеся под военной
оккупацией Израиля в результате военных действий 5 июня 1967 года, и
представить доклад о ходе осуществления резолюции 257 (1967);

2. предлагает правительству Израиля принять специального пред-
ставителя Генерального секретаря, сотрудничать с ним и облегчить выпол-
нение его задачи;

5. рекомендует, чтобы Генеральному секретарю оказывалось всемер-
ное сотрудничество в его усилиях, направленных на выполнение настоящей
резолюции и резолюции 237 (1967).

Принята на 1454-м заседании
12 голосами при 5 воздержав-
шихся (Дания, Канада, Соеди-
ненные Штаты Америки), причем
никто не голосовал против

56/ Там же.

- 29 -

中文文本 (official Chinese version): 案 查 其 先前 决 凡 案 二 四 八 ( 一 九 六 八 ) 绷 谴责 以 色
列 公然 过 反 联 合 国 宪章 及 停火 决议 案 而 发 动 之 军事 行
动 ， 东 对 一 切 违 芭 停 火 之 暴力 事件 深 表 遗 居 ，

绢 於 一 切 违反 停火 情事 概 应 防止 ，

察 悉 以 色 列 对 狗 旦 领土 之 两 次 巨大 空 台 ， 规 模 其
大 ， 且 经 模 密 往 划 ， 实 全 违 反 决 凡 案 二 四 八 (一 九 六
八 )，

对 於 因此 造成 之 恶化 情势 ， 深 切 关 慎 ，

一 . 重申 其 决 太 案 二 四 八 (一 九 六 八 )， 其 中 除 其
他 事项 外 ， 宣 称 对 停火 之 髓 重 破坏 和 认 容 丸 ， 理 事 全
将 须 考虑 审 章 所 规定 之 进一步 及 更 有 效 之 步 县 ， 以 确
保 此 逢 行 需 不 再 重演 ;

二 . 对 生命 囊 失 及 重大 财产 损失 ， 深 表 忱 惜

三 癌 坊 预先 筹划 及 一 再 进行 之 军事 攻 台 危害 和
平 之 稚 持 ;

四 . 迹 责 以 色 列 公然 违反 联合 国 害 章 及 决 纹 案 二
四 八 (一 九 六 用) 而 区 和 檀 发 动 之 军事 攻 ， 站 警告 如 再
发 生 此 种 攻 出 ， 安 全 理事 会 对 於 不 笨 行 本 决 凡 案情 事
将 妥 子 计 及 。

第 一 四 四 〇 次 会 访 一 致
通过 。

决 定
理事 会 於 一 九 六 八 年 九 月 四 日 第 一 四 四 六 次 会 讨
决定 请 以 色 列 及 阿拉 伯 联 合共 和 国 代表 参加 讨论 题 需
“中 东 情 势 : 一 九 六 八 年 九 月 二 日 以 色 列 代理 常任 代
表 致 安全 理事 会 主席 两 (S/8794) ”+ 之 项 目 ， 但 无 表
决 权 。
主席 於 一 九 六 八 年 九 月 八 日 第 一 四 四 八 次 会 巩 宣
慰 将 挺 从 联 合 国 休战 监 察 组 织 参谋 长 及 当 事 各 方 之
下 开 疡 明 :
“安全 理事 会 业 经 亚 行 天 会审 讨 文件 S/
Agenda/1448/Rev.1 所 载 之 翼 程 项 目 [中 东 情
势 : 一 九 六 八 年 九 月 二 日 以 色 列 代理 常任 代表 和 致
安全 理事 会 主席 画 (S/87947 ;一 九 六 八 年 九 月
八 日 以 色 列 常任 代表 致 安全 理事 会 主席 两 CS/
8805); 轩 一 九 六 八 年 九 月 八 日 阿拉 伯 联 合共 和
国 常任 代表 和 致 安全 理事 会 主席 画 (S/8806)] , 业

# 同上 。
同上 。

和 经 贡 取 秘 书 长 提出 之 布 贾 中 将 各 次 报告 ， 冰 经 匠
取 以 色 列 代表 及 阿拉 伯 联 合共 和 国 代 表 之 陈述 ，
对 生命 衷 失 深 感 遗憾 ， 特 请 当 事 各 方 马 格 体 守 安
全 理事 会 各 决 贰 案 所 规定 之 停火 。

决议 案 二 五 八 ( 一 九 关 八 )
一 九 六 八 年 九 月 十 八 日

安全 理事 会 ，
覆 按 一 九 六 八 年 九 月 九 日 安全 理事 会 主席 在 理事
会 第 一 四 四 八 克 会 贰 所 作 之 宣告 ，
深切 天 慰 中 东 日 赵 恶 化 之 情势 ，
深信 联合 国 全 体会 员 国 朵 合 作 府 求 在 中 东 多 致 和
平 解决 ，
一 . 坚持 各 方 必 须 马 格 人 每 重 安全 理事 会 在 各 决 贰
案 内 所 命令 之 停火 ;
二 . 重申 其 一 九 六 七 年 十 一 月 二 十 二 日 决 蔗 案 二
四 二 (一 九 六 七 )， 壮 促请 所 有 当 事 各 方 与 秘书 长 特 浜
代表 充分 合作 ， 使 其 迅速 完成 均 决 坑 案 委 办 之 任务 。
第 一 四 五 二 次 会 议 以 十
四 票 对 零 通 过 ， 率 椎 者
一 ( 阿 季 及 利 亚 )。

决 定
理事 会 於 一 九 六 从 年 九 月 二 十 日 第 一 四 五 三 次 会
凡 决 定 请 约旦 ` 以 色 列 及 阿拉 他 联合 共和 国 代 表 参 加
和 论题 坑 " 中 东 情 势 : 一 九 六 八 年 九 月 十 七 日 巴 基 斯
坦 及 塞 内 加 贾 代表 和 致 安全 理事 会 主席 画 (S/8819)””
之 项 目 ， 但 无 才 决 权 。

理事 会 於 一 九 六 八 年 九 月 二 十 七 日 第 一 四 五 四 次
会 讨 决定 请 钱 利 亚 代 表 参 加 计 花 本 问题 ,但 无 表决 权 。

决 贰 案 二 五 九 ( 一 九 六 八 )
一 九 六 八 年 九 月 二 十 七 日

遇 慰 一 九 六 七 年 六 月 五 日 若 对 行 坊 发 生 和 后 以 色 列
军事 佑 领 之 阿拉 伯 领 十 内 人 民 之 平安 ,福利 与 安全 ，

“同上 。
履 按 其 一 九 六 七 年 六 月 十 四 日 决 凡 案 二 三 七 (一
九 六 七 )，

妖 悉 文件 S/8699" 所 载 秘书 长 报告 书 , 北 感 谢 其
需 此 事 所 作 之 努力 ，

忱 惜 由 於 以 色 列 缕 炉 坚持 其 接待 秘书 长 特派 代
麦 之 条 件 ， 和 致 决 凡 案 二 三 七 (一 九 六 七 ) 之 实施 受到 阻
延 ，

一 . 请 秘书 长 急速 派 遗 特 派 代 表 前 往 一 九 六 七 年
六 月 五 日 获 圣 行 坟 发 生 和 后 以 色 列 军 事 估 倒 之 阿拉 伯 领
土 ， 亚 报告 决 凡 案 二 三 七 (一 九 六 七 ) 之 实施 情形 ;

二 . 请 以 色 列 政府 接待 秘书 长 特派 代表 ， 与 之 合
作 ， 亚 便利 其 工作 ;

三 . 建议 各 方 圣 秘书 长 需 实 施 本 决 贰 案 及 决 芒 案
二 三 七 (一 九 六 七 ) 所 作 努 力 ， 和 给 予 一 切合 作 。
第 一 四 五 四 次 会 议 以 十
二 票 对 零 通 过 ， 束 权 者
三 (加 拿 大 、 丹 堆 、 美 利
坚 合 到 国 )。

决定
理事 会 於 一 九 六 八 年 十 一 月 一 日 第 一 四 五 六 次 会

广 决 定 请 阿拉 伯 联 合共 和 国 , 以 色 列 及 沙 马 地 阿拉 伯
代表 参加 讨 其 下 开 项 目 ， 但 无 表决 权 :

“中 东 情 势 :

“(a) 一 九 六 八 年 十 一 月 一 日 阿拉 伯 联 合共 和 国
导 联 合 国 常任 代表 和 致 安全 理事 会 主席 画
《S/8878) ;5

“(b) 一 九 六 从 年 十 一 月 一 日 以 色 列 驻 联 合 国 常
任 代表 和 致 安全 理事 会 主席 画 (S/8879)。”

理事 会 於 一 九 六 八 年 十 二 月 二 十 九 日 第 一 四 六 〇
次 会 议决 定 请 黎巴嫩 及 以 色 列 代表 参加 言论 下 开 顶
目 ， 但 无 卖 决 权 :

”同上 。
a8 同上 ， 一 九 六 八 年 十 月 ,十 一 月 及 十 二 月 份 补 态 。

“中 东 情 势 :

“(a) 一 九 六 八 年 十 二 月 二 十 九 日 黎巴嫩 常任 代
表 致 安全 理事 会 主席 画 (S/89457;”

“(b) 一 九 六 八 年 十 二 月 二 十 九 日 以 色 列 常任 代
表 致 安全 理事 会 主席 画 (S/8946)。”

理事 会 於 一 九 六 八 年 十 二 月 三 十 日 第 一 四 太一 次
会 议决 定 请 沙 饲 地 阿拉 伯 代 表 参 加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无
表决 权 。

决 细 案 二 天 二 (一 九 六 八 )

一 万 六 八 御 十 二 月 三 十 一 日
安全 理事 会 ，
业已 审 贰 文件 S/Agenda/1462 所 载 广 程 ，
业已 关 悉 黎巴嫩 常任 代表 来 两 (S/8945) 内 容 ，

业已 关 悉 文件 S/7930/Add.1078 及 Add.1082”
所 载 联合 国 休 载 监察 组 织 参 谋 长 提供 之 铺 充 情报 ，

业已 匠 取 黎巴嫩 代表 及 以 色 列 代表 就 具 鲁 特 民 用
国际 飞机 场 章 受 岂 重 旨 岗 事 所 作 陈 壕 ，

鉴 及 以 色 列 军 除 对 具 鲁 特 民用 国际 飞机 场 发 动 之
军事 行动 , 傈 属 事先 预谋 ,而 且 规 模 甚 大 , 策 书 周详 ，
深切 关 愤 因此 次 违反 安全 理事 会 次 访 案 之 结果 ，
情势 丛 趋 恶化 ，
普 深 切 关 屋 确 保 国 际 民 用 空中 交通 自由 无 阻 之 必
要 ，
一 . 区 责 以 色 列 违反 审 章 及 各 项 停火 决 芒 案 所 定
义务 ， 发 动 预 府 军 事 行 动 ;
二 ， 韶 念 此 种 预谋 之 暴力 行 需 危 害 和 平 之 维持 ;
三 . 兹 向 以 色 列 印 重 警告 : 若 再 发 动 此 种 行 坊 , 则
理事 会 不 得 不 考虑 以 进一步 步 叉 ， 实 施 其 决定 ;
四 .如 需 以 色 列 眠 承认 人 玖 事 责任 ， 黎 巴 嫩 对 於 所
受 破 壕 ， 有 权 受 通 当 损害 赔偿 。
第 一 四 六 二 次 会 议 一 至
通通 。

2 同上 。
包 同 上 。

1


Draft resolution (S/8825/Rev.2):
UNITED NATIONS

| Distr.
SECURITY GENERAL
5/8825/Rev.2
C O U N C L A ds /tev.2 1968
ENGLISH

ORIGINAL: FRENCH

Pakistan and Senegal: draft resolution

The Security Council,

Concerned with the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the
Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of
5 June 1967,

Recalling its resolution 237 of 14 June 1967,

Noting the report by the Secretary-General, contained in document 5/8699, and
appreciating his efforts in this connexion,

Deploring the delay in the implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of
the conditions still being set by Isrmel fur receiving a Special Representative of
“the Secretary-General;

1. Requests the Secretary-General urgently to dispatch a special
representative to the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following
the hostilities of 5 June 1967, and $0 report on the implementation of
resolution 237 (1967);

2, Requests the Government of Israel to receive the special representative
of the Secretary-General, to co-operate with him and to facilitate his work;

3,» Recommends that the Sccretary-Genersl be afforded all co-operation in

his efforts to bring about the implementation of the present resolution and

resolution 237 (1967).

rr 6820204

Meeting record:
UNITED NATIONS roy,

EEA

} TIRE REAR
a AE RE WITLE

ral El

SECURITY COUNCIL
OFFICIAL RECORDS

TWENTY-THIRD YEAR

th
1 4 ha MEETING: 27 SEPTEMBER 1968

NEW YORK
CONTENTS
Page
Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1454) ............. ee 1
Adoption of the agenda . .... ... iii i ee 1

The situation in the Middle East:
. Letter dated 17 September 1968 addressed to the President of the Security

Council by the representatives of Pakistan and Senegal (S/8819) .........

S/PV.1454
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 §/. . .) 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 FIFTY.-FOURTH MEETING

Held in New York on Friday, 27 September 1968, at 4 p.m,

President: Mr, G. IGNATIEFF (Canada).

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

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1454)
1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. The situation in the Middle East:
Letter dated 17 September 1968 addressed to the
President of the Security Council by the representatives
of Pakistan and Senegal (5/8819). ’

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted,

The situation in the Middle East

Letter dated 17 September 1968 addressed to the President
of the Security Council by the representatives of Pakistan
and Senegal (5/8819)

1. The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the decision
taken by the Council at its 1453rd meeting I shall now,
with the consent of the Council, invite the representatives
of Jordan, Israel and the United Arab Republic to take
places at the Council table in order to participate in the
discussion without the right to vote.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. H. El-Farra
(Jordan), Mr. Y. Tekoah (Israel) and Mr. M. A. El Kony
{United Arab Republic) took places at the Council fable.

2. The PRESIDENT: In a letter dated 23 September 1968,

circulated as document S/8829, the representative of Syria
has likewise requested to be invited to participate without
vote in the discussion of the question at present before the
Council. If T hear no objections, I shall also invite the
representative of Syria to take a place at the Council table.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. G. J. Tomeh
(Syria) took a place at the Council table.

3. The PRESIDENT: The Security Council will now

resume its consideration of the question before it. As I.

indicated at the close of our preceding meeting last Friday,
the Council then adjourned for informal consultations,
which have been carried on intensively in the intervening
period. The Council has now before it a revised version of
the draft resolution submitted by Pakistan and Senegal. The
new text in English and French is contained in document
S/8825/Rev.2, dated 26 September 1968.

4, Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): We have all been
concerned that humanitarian action, in accordance with the
clear purposes of the Council unanimously expressed within
a day or two of the June war of 1967 and endorsed soon
afterwards by the Assembly, has been so long delayed.

5. Our dismay at this long frustration of our unanimous
aims has been increased as we have read the Secretary-General's note of 31 July this year [5/8699] and as we
listened to the debate last Friday.

6. It appeared possible that the unanimous wish of the
Council, expressed more than a year ago, would be defeated
altogether. Indeed, it appeared that there were some who
were content to contemplate no result at all. That would
surely be an outcome quite unacceptable to most members
of the Council, if not all. Nor would the Assembly thank us
if we were satisfied with a deadlock.

7. This is one of the causes for concern; to escape from a
stalemate, to get a result, to take positive action,

8. But we have another concern. The accusation of
discrimination has been made. It is a serious charge, and
throughout our consultations I have been most anxious, as
members of the Council well know, that we should not lay
ourselves open to any such accusation. To do so would
diminish the authority of the Council and gravely weaken
its capacity for effective action.

9. So with those two considerations in mind it seems to
me incumbent on us all to go over the ground very
carefully. So important are the issues that T wish to explain
the arguments which I have been at pains to put to other
members in the consultations which we have undertaken

together.

10. What objectives did we set? First, to see that the aims
of the Council and the Assembly were duly respected and
implemented; second, to use our best judgement to ensure
impartiality; third, and most important, to keep constantly
in our minds the humanitarian objectives of the resolutions
which represent the overwhelming wishes of the whole
international community.
11. The main question I ask is this: what was the intention
of this Council when it unanimously adopted the humanitarian resolution 237 (1967) on 14 June 1967?

12. The Security Council resolution was adopted within a
day or two of the end of the war on the initiative of
Argentina, Brazil and Ethiopia. Most of us remember the
exact circumstances very well. We remember how grateful
we were to those countries for their initiative, and how
happy we were that in pursuing these humanitarian objects
we could act together in full agreement, We were concerned
about civilians in the area of the conflict. We were not
taking a partisan position. We were concerned with all those
in the area of conflict.

13. At the same time it must be clearly stated that we had
in mind, as our resolution said, “the area of conflict” and
“the areas where military operations have taken place”.
That was stated in our resolution 237 (1967), and General
Assembly 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967 welcomed and
restated the terms of the Council’s resolution. So there is
and can be no doubt of the intention of the Council and
the Assembly.

14. So much for the intention and purpose of the Council
and the Assembly in June and July last .year. What
happened next? The Secretary-General has been careful to
tell us the whole story of what took place. He explained
that by “a broad humanitarian interpretation” —those were
his words—“it was possible to stretch the terms of the
resolutions” again | use his words—“to include humanitarian inquiries concerning Jewish persons in Syria and the
United Arab Republic as ancillary to the investigation of
the condition and treatment of inhabitants in occupied
territories” /ibid., para. 10]. He also clearly explained why
it was not possible to extend the inquiries to Lebanon and
Iraq. To do so would obviously have gone far beyond the
mandate of the resolutions, At the same time he made it
plain that he was prepared to send a second special
representative to the Middle East with exactly the same
terms of reference as those given to Ambassador Gussing.

15. It could be said that the Secretary-General went
beyond the strict interpretation of the resolution. But if he
did so, he acted, as he has reported, for humanitarian
reasons. We respect the reasons and we respect his motives.
We should support his decision. It is, in my opinion, of the
greatest importance that we should do so in view of ibe
accusations of discrimination. No such charge can be made
against the Secretary-General. On the contrary, he has acted
fairly and humanely. We should accept and applaud his
decisions and his actions.

16. It was with those developments and considerations in
mind that we approached the present debate. We were first
concerned that whatever action we took should be effective. We were concerned with results. We wished to avoid a
bitter and barren debate, We wanted no partisan victory in
a fruitless vote. We were constantly concerned with our
obligation to a vast number of bewildered people, many of
them helpless, in distress and in despair. We cannot feed
them with votes. We cannot shelter them with resolutions.

17. We greatly hoped that, however deep our feelings and
however strong our attachments, we could make a renewed

effort to find a practical way to go forward effectively in
full agreement to help them. It was for those reasons that
we put forward certain propositions in our consultations,

18. We wanted to see the humanitarian resolutiog
237 (1967) given full effect. Accordingly, we wished to
enable the Secretary-General to dispatch his special repre.
sentative to the area without further delay. We wished to
make it clear that no obstacles and no conditions should
stand in the way. We hoped that all members of the Council
would rally to a unanimous decision to support and giv
effect to those three simple, clear, compelling propositions,
We put forward detailed proposals to achieve that object,

19. If those propositions were accepted we should pre
serve the full agreement which we achieved when the
original resolution 237 (1967) was adopted. We should
provide the best chance for its effective implementation,
We should best serve the interests of the people who
depend on us for practical help.

20. My Government will, of course, support any effort
directed to meet the humanitarian needs of those who
suffered and are still suffering from the war, We shall, of
course, support any call to implement resolution
237 (1967) on which we all agreed last year.

21. We do so, in appealing on truly humanitarian grounds,
It should not be a matter of accusation or animosity or
discrimination, but an appeal to give every facility, every
assistance, every support to the Secretary-General and his
representative. The Ambassador of Israel made a welcome
gesture in that direction when he said that he was:

“... authorized to state that any person present at this
Security Council table who wishes to come to Israel
would be welcome and we would be happy to facilitate
his visit to the territories under Israeli control so that he
can form his own impressions,” [I1453rd meeting,
para. 99.1

We trust that it will be in that spirit that the Israel
Government will respond to the appeal we make,

22. We we not in any dispute about aims. On those we a
all agreed. We hope that it is still not too late for this
Council to reflect and agree on the best means of achieving
those aims. It is perhaps still not too late to act not only in
full agreement but also in the way best calculated to bring
succour to those who suffer. They have been left to suffer
too long. If their voices could be heard here, they would,
have no doubt at all, cry out for effective action. What we
want is not any voting victory but a practical success.

23. When we leave this debate we know that we must
move on to the greatest endeavour yet made to achieve
progress in the search for a just and permanent peace in the
Middle East. Ambassador Gunnar Jarring is already here
and the Foreign Ministers are arriving. The stage is set fora
supreme effort of consultation, conciliation and co-oper
tion.

24. What we do here now could provide a good start for
this new initiative. We could show that the Council is ready

and anxious to play its essential part fairly and fully both in
relief of suffering and in remedy for injustice.

25, Those are the objects which we have endeavoured to
put before anything else, and those are the objects which
we trust will guide the Council now.

26. Mr. BERARD (France) (translated from French): The
continued occupation of Arab territories by Israeli forces
more than a year after the hostilities which took place in
the Near East, is inevitably also prolonging all the sequels to
that conflict. It suffices to examine the list of communications on the treatment of civilian populations in the
occupied areas appearing in the Security Council’s draft
report to the General Assembly, to realize that many
problems continue to arise at the humanitarian level.

27. The Secretary-General was requested to follow the
effective implementation of resolution 237 (1967) concetning the civilian populations and prisoners of war in the area
of conflict, adopted by the Security Council on 14 June
1967, as well as of resolution 2252 (ES-V) concerning
humanitarian assistance, adopted by the General Assembly
on 4 July 1967. It is therefore understandable that he
should be anxious to receive direct information on those
problems, information no longer available to him since the
conclusion of Mr. Nils Gussing’s mission in October 1967.

28. My delegation, therefore, supported the idea expressed

“in the Secretary-General’s note of 19 April 1968 [5/8553],
that a representative should again be sent to the region,
specifically to enable him to submit reports, as requested in
the resolutions of the Council and the General Assembly.
My delegation thought, as did the Secretary-General, that it
would be both useful for the United Nations and in the
interests of all the parties to draw up a report based on
recent and first-hand information concerning. the position
of the civilian population. It regrets that certain obstacles
should have made it impossible, for the moment, to send
such a representative, as stated in the Secretary-General’s
note of 31 July 1968 [5/8699].

29. My delegation finds this all the more regrettable in
that the Secretary-General repeatedly indicated that the
second mission envisaged would have the same scope and
the same terms of reference as the first. The first did not
give rise to any particular difficulties. Mr. Gussing stressed
the fact that he had received complete co-operation at all
levels in the countries which he visited. Although he did not
meet the spokesmen of the people and the local authorities
except in the presence of government representatives, he at
least enjoyed full freedom of movement.

30. Moreover, the Secretary-General gave the broadest
possible interpretation to the provisions of the resolutions
in defining the range and functioning of Mr. Gussing’s
mission. For obvious humanitarian reasons, France welcomed that interpretation. My country could not remain
indifferent to the fate of ethnic or religious minorities in
any State. France opposes all discrimination, whether on
grounds of religion, race or colour. By tradition and by
vocation, it is too firmly attached to the principle of
respect for human dignity and human rights to remain

unconcerned about such problems, It has never refused, nor

does it now refuse, within the limits and with the
reservations prescribed by the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other
States, to take action in specific cases of which it has
knowledge.

31. Why, in these circumstances, put forward new
demands when it is obvious that they will impede the
operation of the proposed machinery by placing genuinely
unacceptable conditions on the special representative’s
mission? The resolutions whose effective implementation
the Secretary-General was asked to follow are not essen-

tially concerned with the matter in question. Both call

upon the Government of Israel, in particular, to ensure “the
safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas
where military operations have taken place and to facilitate
the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas
since the outbreak of hostilities”. Today, those areas are
occupied territories.

32. My Government has consistently pressed for a speedy
end to that occupation, because it regards it as contrary to
the Charter and because it is concerned about the danger of
violence and reprisals, as well as about the threats to
individual liberties and human rights which must inevitably
follow upon any forcible occupation. It nevertheless
believes that, since such occupation exists and is continu-

_ ing, the Council must be informed about the conditions

prevailing in the occupied territories, and in particular,
about the welfare and security of the population,

33. My delegation therefore shares the views expressed by
the Secretary-General at the end of his note of 31 July
1968:

“It is most unfortunate, in my view, that these
considerations involving the well-being of a great many
people, cannot be given sufficient priority "and be
regarded as having sufficient urgency to override obstacles
such as those that have been encountered thus far.”

34. My delegation calls for the removal of these obstacles,
so that the Secretary-General may be in a position to carry
out the task laid upon him by the Council and by the
General Assembly.

35. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker on my list is the
representative of the United Arab Republic to whom I give

the floor.

36. Mr. El KONY (United Arab Republic): We are grateful
to the delegations of Senegal and Pakistan for having taken
the initiative of bringing to the attention of the Security
Council the question of the necessity of dispatching a
Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the
occupied Arab territories.

37. We also appreciate the urgency with which the
members of the Council have considered the request of

Pakistan and Senegal.

38. The Israeli authorities have pursued in the occupied
Arab territories a policy which defies the rules of morality
and contravenes the principles of the Charter. Their wanton
aggression of 5 June 1967 is but a glaring example of their
disrespect for the rule of law. It should not be viewed in
isolation from their continued illegal occupation and their
brutal treatment of the civilian population in those areas.
For these are the primordial elements which demonstrate
their sinister expansionist designs. Their occupation of the
Arab lands and their mistreatment of its inhabitants are a
constant violation of the principles which the international
community has adopted to regulate the behaviour of States
in time of war and to alleviate the sufferings which armed
conflicts inflict upon civilians.

39, The Geneva Conventions of 1949 defined the ethics
and rules of conduct which States are legally obligated to
apply in any armed conflict. The fact that Israel has signed
these Conventions obviously does not exert any weight on
the formulation of its policies in the occupied Arab
territories. This should not be surprising for United Nations
records definitely reveal that Israel has accumulated the
longest list of perfidious violations of treaties and condemnations by the United Nations.

40. The cruel treatment which the Israeli authorities are
inflicting on the inhabitants of the occupied Arab territories is infuriating the whole Arab world. The news from
Arab Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the west bank of
Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinai is distressing and dangerously provocative. The forms of this cruelty are varied ; they
include the deprivation of means of livelihood, indignities,
internment in concentration camps, imprisonment, eviction, demolition of houses, desecration of Holy Places and
even cold-blooded murder, of which a recent victim was the
late Judge Shawki El-Farra, a cousin of the distinguished
representative of Jordan. This dangerous situation calls for
urgent action.

41. 1 could easily cite a multitude of violatibns and other
unlawful actions perpetrated by the Israeli authorities in
the occupied Arab territories. However, since some of the
unlawful Israeli actions have been the subject of previous
letters to the Security Council, I shall confine my remarks
to a very few of the most flagrant crimes committed by
Israel. My intention is to illustrate that the unlawful Israeli
behaviour has undoubtedly contradicted the injunctions of
the United Nations organs and the obligations emanating
from universal international agreements,

42. Israel has adniitted, and even boasted, that its military
forces in the occupied Arab territories have frequently
resorted to the inhumane practice of indiscriminately
demolishing houses as a means of suppressing the legitimate
aspirations of the civilian inhabitants. Article 53 of the
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, prohibits “any
destruction by the occupying Power of real or personal
property belonging individually or collectively to private
persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to
social or co-operative organizations”! .

43. It is apparent that Israel is wilfully resorting to the
devastation of houses to inflict and aggravate the suffering
of the civilian population in order to attain its illegal
objectives.

"1 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75 (1950), No. 973.

44. Another aspect of the unlawful Israeli behaviour,
which has also been admitted and widely publicized by the
Istaclis themselves, is the appropriation of Arab lands
owned individually or collectively by Arabs. The most
pertinent example has occurred in connexion with the city
of Jerusalem. Notwithstanding the fact that the Gener]
Assembly unanimously adopted resolution 2253 (ESV)
which considered all measures taken by Israel invalid and
called upon Israel to rescind any measures which might
change the status of that Holy City, Israel has nevertheless
announced its annexation and adamantly refuses to heed
the injunctions of the United Nations and the exhortations
of the international community. In addition to the United
Nations resolutions, article 147 of the 1949 Geneva
Convention, which I have referred to earlier, stipulates that
the “appropriation of property” is a grave breach of the
said Convention. It is by now an established fact that the
real motive behind Israel's actions in that Holy City was to
consolidate its illegal annexation in complete violation of
the United Nations resolutions and its international obliga.
tions.

45. In order to achieve its expansionist schemes, Israel has
consistently and systematically enforced measures aimed at
changing the ethnic and demographic structures of the
occupied Arab territories, Intimidation, coercion and mas.
sive deportation were extensively used to empty those pars
of the Arab homelands of their legitimate and lawful
inhabitants. The “unlawful deportation or transfer” of the
civilian population in militarily occupied areas has been
considered a grave breach by article 147 of the same
Geneva Convention, Moreover, this brutal practice hs
come to the attention of the international community in
connexion with the revolting nazi crimes during the Second
World War. The Charter of the International Military
Tribunal, annexed to the Agreement for the prosecution
and punishment of the major war criminals of the European
Axis, signed at London on 8 August 19452 condemned
those acts. Later, the General Assembly considered those
principles as recognized principles of international law and
directed the International Law Commission to formulate
the principles of international law recognized in the Charter
of the Nuremberg Tribunal and Judgement of the Tribunal.

46. The International Law Commission formulation stipulates in principle VI 3 that war crimes include “violations of
the laws or customs of war which include, but are not
limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave
labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or
in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners
of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder
of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities,
towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military
necessity”. Principle VI also considers “deportation and
other inhuman acts done against any civilian population” as
crimes against humanity,

47. Moreover, the General Assembly, concerned with the
failure of Israel to respect the rules regulating civilian
treatment, adopted resolution 2252 (ES-V), which called

2 Ibid,, vol. 82 (1951), No. 251.
3 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifth Session,
Supplement No. 12, part II,
upon “the Government of Israel to ensure the safety,
welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where
military operations had taken place and to facilitate the
return of those inhabitants who had fled the areas since the
outbreak of hostilities”. The provisions of this resolution
would undoubtedly condemn Israel’s policy of deportation.

48. It is distressing, and indeed appalling, to notice that
those who have suffered most in the dark nazi era have now
developed a propensity to some of the same diabolical
schemes. The civilian population of the occupied Arab
territories have been subjected to cruel practices by the
Israelis, who adamantly refuse to heed the rules of law and
the injunctions of the United Nations organs.

49. In view of this established policy of repression it is no
wonder, then, that the Israeli authorities refuse to comply
with resolution 237 (1967) of the Security Council. This
explains why Israel is adamant in its refusal to co-operate
with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General.
Israel therefore undertook to put obstacles in the way of its
implementation. It did not hesitate to introduce irrelevant
mattérs into the discussion, to impose conditions, and to
insist on an interpretation of the resolution which its
authors had never contemplated.

50. It is to this type of behaviour on the part of the
Israelis, to which I have alluded briefly but on which the
representative of Jordan has elaborated, that we owe this
dramatic performance of Mr, Tekoah in the Council, The
legal acrobatics of his Government are a futile attempt to
bury it from the eyes of the world and to divert attention
from the extent of its cruelty and callousness.

51. It is interesting to follow the different phases of the
Israeli reaction to the request of the Secretary-General to
dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories
occupied militarily as a result of the Israeli aggression
committed on 5 June 1967, which will allow the Council to
fully understand the scope of Israeli policies, as well as their
evil contents.

52. During the early stages of the contacts conducted by
the Secretary-General with the Israeli Government towards
the accomplishment of this humanitarian mission, the first
reaction was that, as a condition for their co-operation with
a Special Representative, the latter’s mandate had to be
extended to the Jewish Communities in the Arab countries,
victims of the Israeli aggression of last year. The Secretary-General, and rightly so, rejected by legal arguments the
validity of that Israeli request. In this connexion, and
although 1 do not intend to indulge in legal controversy,
since the case is clear, may I be allowed to quote the
statement delivered before the Council by the representative of Argentina, when introducing, on behalf also of
Brazil and Ethiopia, resolution 237 (1967):

“First of all, we are deeply concerned at the fate of the
civilian population whose persons and possessions are
suffering from the consequences of war. A minimum
standard of rights must be guaranteed to those who are
not taking any active part in hostilities. We believe that
these persons must be treated in a humane manner under
all circumstances, that their family and residence rights,

their religious convictions and practices and their habits
and customs must be protected and, above all, that they

must not be subject to any act of physical or mol
coercion,

“In our draft resolution this appeal is addressed
specifically to the Government of Israel, since in present
circumstances it is that Government which will be largely
responsible for applying these humanitarian principles.”
[1361st meeting, paras. 5 and 6.]

53. Realizing at this stage that they could not withstand
the strength of the Secretary-General’s legal argumentation,
they proceeded in their customary manner to confuse the
issues even further, and claimed that the Special Representative’s mandate included also the Jewish communities in
other Arab countries: namely, Iraq and Lebanon. By no
stretch of the imagination can one take this Israeli claim
either seriously or in good faith.

54, Having been faced with another failure in their
endeavours to undermine the efforts of the Secretary-General to implement the resolution, and lacking any
elements of substance or of law with which to obstruct
those efforts, they intensified their confusing tactics by
invoking resolution I adopted by the International Conference on Human Rights held at Teheran from 22 April to 13
May 19684 They alleged that the adoption of that
resolution had only complicated the question of a Special
Representative.

55. But what does the Teheran resolution really say, and
what do its provisions in fact imply? The resolution
expressed the grave concern of the Conference for the
violation of human rights in Arab territories occupied as a
result of the June 1967 hostilities. The Conference further
draws the attention of the Government of Israel to the
grave consequences resulting from the disregard of fundamental freedoms and human rights in the occupied territories. It particularly calls on the Government of Israel to
desist forthwith from destroying the homes of the Arab
civilian population inhabiting areas occupied by Israel and

“to respect -and implement the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and the Geneva Convention of 12 August
1949 in the occupied territories. It evidently affirms the
inalienable rights of all inhabitants who have left their
homes as a result of the outbreak of hostilities in the
Middle East to return, resume normal life, recover their
property and homes, and rejoin their families, according to
the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

56. This is a clear resolution, and its provisions speak for
themselves. The Israeli violations have been recognized by
the Teheran Conference. Far from complicating any issues,
it renders it imperative for the Secretary-General not to
delay the dispatch of his Special Representative.

57. My delegation, though it is not at all surprised at the
behaviour of the Israeli authorities, cannot, however, but
express its astonishment at the attitude taken by certain

4 See Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights
(United Nations publication, Sales No.: E.68.XIV.2).
Powers in this respect. This astonishment stems from the
fact that by delaying the action of the Council-and in so
doing lending a helping hand to Israel to pursue its
procrastination with impunity—they are negating and
sapping the foundations of the whole legal structure which
humankind so laboriously erected in the wake of the
Second World War to ensure the protection of the civilian
population of the occupied territories. By encouraging the
manoeuvres of Israel and playing its game, those same
Powers are seeking to assist Israel in its inhuman policy,
which as we all know can only result in the increased
suffering of the civilian population of those territories.

58. The situation is self-evident. This Council has adopted
a resolution, and Israel is flouting it by attempting to
complicate its implementation. The resolution itself is also
self-evident, In the words of the Secretary-General in the
legal analysis contained in his note of 31 July:

“Operative paragraph 1 of Security Council resolution
237 (1967) calls upon Israel to ensure the safety, welfare
and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military
operations have taken place. This paragraph applies
without question to the area occupied by Israel since
June 1967.” [S/8699, para. 10.]

Furthermore, the Secretary-General adds:

“Likewise operative paragraph 2 strictly interpreted
could not apply either to Arab persons in Israel or to
Jewish persons in the Arab States. The provisions of the
Geneva Convention Relative to Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 at present
have application only to civilians in the occupied territories.” [Ibid]

59. 1 should like now to turn very briefly to the alleged
right which Israel has arrogated to itself to speak on behalf
of all citizens of the Jewish faith in the world, irrespective
of their nationality.

60. This is a dangerous concept and can serve no useful
purpose but to complicate international relations. It brings
back memories of the past when imperialist Powers invoked
the right to protect certain minorities to further their
colonial designs. It seems that Israel intends to revive this
moribund practice.

61. The objectives are clear: territorial expansion in the
Arab world, pressure on other Powers to comply with
Israel’s political aims and exploitation of men of Jewish
faith who are citizens of other countries. Should this
concept be accepted, it would constitute 2 double-edged
weapon of blackmail used today against certain countries
but which could serve tomorrow as a threat to others.

62. The Zionist attempt to exploit the citizens of Jewish
faith in other countries will only lend itself to the increase
of friction and the heightening of tension among States. It
can contribute only to sowing the seeds of discord within
nations. I am sure that people of the Jewish faith are loyal
citizens of their countries and certainly resent the imposed
patronage of Israel, which can only do harm. Israel would
do better to refrain from advancing such claims and abiding

by and respecting the accepted norms of international
behaviour.

63. Having said this, it was not my intention to be dragged
into polemics concerning my compatriots of the Jewish
faith. I merely wish to state once and for all that they are
equal citizens, enjoying all the rights and certainly bearing
the same obligations.

64. The inhuman conduct of the Israeli authorities with
regard to the Arab population victimized by its aggression is
only one aspect of Israeli policies. Toleration of this.
conduct can only bring more suffering and ever-increasing
woes to the civilian population under its military occupa.
tion. An end must be put to these injustices, and dignity
must be restored to the people.

65. It is only humane and urgent now to send a
representative of the Secretary-General immediately and
not to delay any further his dispatch to the area, Enough
time has been lost and the suffering of the civilian
population is increasing from day to day.

66. It should be realized that this particular step is only an
expedient and a palliative in order to allay some of the
hardships which the Arab inhabitants of the occupied areas
are enduring through the continued Israeli occupation for
their salvation can be assured only through the complete
withdrawal of Israeli troops from all the territories they
have occupied as a result of their treacherous aggression,

67. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of Syria.

68. Mr. TOMEH (Syria): The Syrian delegation wishes to
record its thanks and gratitude to the two delegations of
Senegal and Pakistan for having taken the initiative in
calling an urgent meeting of the Security Council for
consideration of the Secretary-General’s note of 31 July
1968 [5/8699]. The urgency of the problem that we are
discussing can hardly be overemphasized since it now

involves the deplorable fate of over half a million Arab
civilians evicted by force from the areas of conflict
occupied by the Israeli Army after the Blitzkrieg of 5 June
1967, as well as the humiliating and inhuman treatment of
the remaining Arab population under Israeli domination.

69. It is about a year and three months since the Security
Council adopted resolution 237 (1967) and since the
General Assembly adopted its resolution 2252 (ES-V) on
4 July of the same year. Both resolutions unequivocally
called on the Government of Israel to ensure the safety,
welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where
military operations had taken place and to facilitate the
return of those inhabitants who had fled the areas since the
outbreak of hostilities.

70. Since the two resolutions were adopted they have
been completely disregarded by Israel and the tragic plight
of the victims of the 5 June war continues unabated.

71. Let me emphasize one significant fact at the outset,
that these two resolutions have been referred to as ‘the
“humanitarian resolutions”. Our attention must be focused
on the humanitarian aspect of the problem, the aspect
which deals with the basic universal human rights now
enshrined in the covenants approved and adopted by the
International community. I therefore propose that the
humanitarian aspect of this problem is the one that should
guide our deliberations. But humanitarian conditions by no
Means impose extraneous and artificial subjects to supersede legal stipulations. The Secretary-General made this
Point clear in his many answers to the Israeli representative
arxd in the legal analysis which was attached, for the first
time, to a note by the Secretary-General addressed to a
United Nations representative /ibid.],

72. In aremarkable report on the Arab refugees submitted
by the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency5 to the International Conference on
Human Rights held in Teheran on 22 April to 13 May
1968, speaking about the old, the intermediate and those
new refugees who are the subject of our discussion today,
he had this to say:

“... Without a just solution to the refugee problem the
Fiuman rights which are enshrined in these international
instruments cannot be achieved for the Palestine refugees:
they will remain a people to whom the full realization of
these rights is denied. [t may thus be appropriate to
search for a solution not only as a political settlement but
as a means of implementing human rights. Perhaps a
solution to this sad intractable problem may be more
effectively and hopefully pursued by tempering consideration of a political character with simple humane concern
for restoring humane rights to the Palestine refugees.”

73. The Security Council, like any other council or
tribunal, is entitled to know all the facts before a
judgement or decision is rendered on the merits of a case.
IDo we have, outside the accusations and counteraccusations of Arabs and Israelis, objective sources from
which information of the kind we are after could be
obtained, information such as that with which the Special
Representative who has been sent by the Secretary-General
could provide this Council and which would help us to get a
clear picture of the sad situation? I submit that such
material exists, providing proof beyond any doubt that
Israel committed and is still committing war crimes and
crimes against humanity in the occupied Arab territories
and against civilian populations. These sources are:

{a) Report of the Commissioner-General of the United
MN ations Relief and Works Agency submitted to the twentysecond General Assembly 6

{b) Report of the Secretary-General under General
Assembly resolution 2252 (ES-V), and Security Council
resolution 237 (1967), known as the Gussing report.”

{ ¢) Note by the Secretary-General under General Assembly resolution 2252 (ES-V) and Security Council resolution

S Document A/CONF.32/22 of 29 April 1968.

6 Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-second
Session, Supplement No. 13.

7 See Official Records of the Security Council, Twenty-second
Year, Supplement for October, November and December 1967,
document 5/8158.

237 (1967), contained in document S/8435 of 2 March
1968.

(d) Note submitted by the Commissioner-General of the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the Near East to the International Conference
on Human Rights in Teheran.’

fe) A number of books and articles written by Israelis
themselves strongly objecting to the policy of their Government against the Arabs.

(f} Two reports in my possession from the International
Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, which, upon the
request of my Government, investigated a number of crimes
committed by Israeli authorities against the Arab civilian
population in the occupied Syrian territory.

(g) A number of articles written by American and other
Western writers who have visited the area and reported on
the plight of the Arab population, collected in a volume
entitled Israel and the Geneva Conventions, issued by the
Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, 1968.

74, These, I repeat, are not Arab sources of information,
but are either official United Nations documents or writings
by Israeli, American and other Western writers. What does
emerge from these sources?

75. Two basic points have already been dealt with at
length by the representatives of Senegal and Pakistan, as
well as by my Arab colleagues, the Ambassadors of Jordan
and the United Arab Republic, which will make any further
elaboration by me unnecessary, namely, the mandate of the
Permanent Representative of the Secretary-General and the
definition of ‘“‘area of conflict where military operations
have taken place” But to set the record clear I wish to point
out that I have dealt at length with these two points in my
letters to the Secretary-General of 18 March, 2 May and 20
May 1968, the texts of which appear in the reports of the
Secretary-General dated 19 April /S/8553] and 31 July
[S/8699]. 1t is, however, of the utmost importance to my
Government to emphasize point 2 of my letter to the
Secretary-General of 2 May 1968, stating:

“The members of the Jewish community in Syria are
Syrian citizens with full equal rights and duties and have
never been considered otherwise except by Zionism. In
fact, Zionism, predicated on the concept of a ‘Jewish
people’, and Israel, have arrogated to themselves the right
to speak in the name of all. citizens of Jewish faith
wherever they are: a concept that has been totally
rejected on adequate legal and political considerations. To
stretch, therefore, the terms of reference of the special
representative to include Jewish communities in Syria or
other Arab countries, vittims of the Israeli war of
aggression of 5 June 1967, would be tantamount to
interfering in the internal affairs by the United Nations
which is precluded by the Charter. No discrimination on
the basis of religion exists or has ever existed in Syria,”

[Ibid., para. 2.]

76. Those representatives who expressed concern about

ethnic or religious minorities in Arab or other countries can
easily seek assurances from the International Red Cross
Committee, which was invited to visit Syria. In a letter
dated 1 June 1968, the representative of the International
Red Cross Committee said to the Minister of the Interior of
Syria:

“I know that the Syrian Government provided protection for the Jewish quarter during the events of June
1967; I know that recently a Syrian citizen of the Mosaic
religion suffering from cancer was transferred through the
Government's good offices to a Beirut hospital. Furthermore, a statement broadcast by the Ministry of National
Education has again stressed that Syrian Jews are not
enemies, but citizens like all other. I am even in a position
to state that the businesses of Jewish citizens are still
operating. All these facts are a tribute to you, and I feel
honour bound to emphasize them.” /5/8689.]

77. First, with regard to the new Arab refugees, according
to the report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA
submitted to the twenty-second session of the General
Assembly, 234,000 Arabs were refugees from Jordan, Syria
and the Sinai Peninsula following the war, in addition to
120,000 previous refugees registered with UNRWA who
fled their refugee camps, overrun by the Israeli army.
These numbers have been on the increase day by day, while
the Israelis systematically, as in the past, apply terrorist
methods to empty the Arab lands of their Arab inhabitants.
That number has now reached over 600,000 victims of the
Israeli policy of returning Arabs to the desert in vindictive
fury apainst those whom they claim want to push the Jews
into the sea.

78. This increase in the number of refugees is supported
by the note of the Secretary-General under General
Assembly resolution 2252 (ES-V) and Security Council
resolution 237 (1967) contained in document S/8435 of
2 March 1968. To swell the number, the Syrian occupied
area has been almost completely emptied of its inhabitants.
Over forty villages have been leveled with those bulldozers
which are now the symbol of Israeli mastery. In the Syrian
occupied area the chill winds of desolation and death blow,
interrupted only by the tramp and noise of the conqueror’s
boots.

79. In this connexion, it is relevant to quote two
paragraphs from the report of the Commissioner-General of
UNRWA submitted to the International Conference on
Human Rights in Teheran on 29 April 1968, which reads:

“No one can pretend that the standard of living thus
provided conformed to ‘the right to a standard of living
‘adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of
his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical
care and necessary social services’ referred to in Article 25
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,”

He goes on to say:

“In the final analysis, however, all these endeavours are
palliatives: they have helped to maintain minimum
standards of living for the refugee population, they have
restored some of their confidence and, possibly, preserved

something of their human dignity. What they have not
done is to put an end to their refugee status and accord to
them the full measure of human rights which the
Universal Declaration and the International Covenants
require.”

80. I strongly draw the attention of the members of the
Council to this report of the Commissioner-General of
UNRWA to the International Conference on Human Rights
in Teheran.

81. Between 25 July 1967 and 16 August 1968 1
addressed a number of letters dealing with the violation of
human rights and the Geneva Conventions committed by
the Israeli occupying authorities against the Arab civilian
population and these letters have been circulated as
documents of the Security Council and the General
Assembly. I need not tax the patience of members of the
Council with a repetition of the facts they contained, but
to set the record clear I should like to read an excerpt from
one of them concerning the inhuman, immoral treatment of
the Arabs, while Israeli representatives, one after the otler,
were describing the virtues of their occupation and the
advantages accruing to the Arab population under their
domination. Thus, immediately following the Israeli
occupation of Syrian territory, the Israeli army, committed
the following atrocities:

“1. The intimidation carried out against the inhabitants of villages has been such that most of the
population have fled their homes . . .

“...in other instances they resort to starving the
population—through the burning of fields of wheat—as
happened in the region of El-Joukhadar, thus compelling
peasants to quit their villages in search for means of
subsistence . . .

“2. The seizure of innocent civilians, their blindfolding
and driving into prisons has become a daily practice in
Kuneitra and in many other localities . . .
shop in Kuneitra was

“3. Looting... Every

robbed . . .

“4, Murder in cold blood is the lot of some youths
who are considered to be dangerous for the future of the
conquest, This was the case of fifteen captives taken out
of the dispensary of Nab in the region of Al-Zaweeyeh.
This was also the case of any male carrying the
service-to-the-flag booklet . . .

“5. The ruthlessness of the invaders crystallizes pat
ticularly against those suspected of being members of the
Baath Party or the Popular Army. In one case, a national
guard ... was transported into occupied Palestine by
helicopter because a few party leaflets were found on
him. Thereafter, the inhabitants of the village were
expelled. In another case, in the village of Al-Al, the
invaders were carrying lists of supposed suspects, They
divided the inhabitants of the village into two categories:
those under thirty-five years of cge were taken to
occupied Palestine; those above thirty-five were subjected
to torture, hands tied behind their back, blindfolded and
then expelled to Haouran.”8

82. While Israeli representatives and spokesmen continue
to deny our accusations, a series of atrocities continue to be
committed. From among the most recent I cite the
following:

“fa) On 29 June 1968, the Israeli Army bulldozed the
Syrian village Al Dabboussia , . .

“(b) On 1 July 1968, the Israeli Army also bulldozed
the Syrian village Al Jurnia . ..

“As to the inhuman treatment of civilians, following are
some facts:

“fa) Of 200 Syrian soldiers who disappeared following
the 5 June 1967 war and who could not be accounted
for, the Israeli authorities presented the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) four death certificates only.

“/b) One hundred and twenty civilians captured during

“the .attack on Syria in the Kuneitra area and led away

under the eyes of their families to unknown destinations
have mysteriously disappeared.

&&

“(d} Syrian and Arab prisoners are being forcibly
subjected to blood extraction which is turned over to
Israeli hospitals. On 26 June 1968, the Syrian Govemnment officially requested the ICRC to investigate this
inhuman treatment of prisoners of war,

119

“(f) The forcible expulsion of the few remaining
civilian population continues up till now in spite of the
repeated denials of the Israeli representative and his
authorities. This is done sometimes in the most horrifying
manner. Thus on 4 May 1968, Idriss Mustafa Lahuj, from
Al Mansoura village occupied by the Israeli army, was
offered 1,000 Syrian pounds, the equivalent of US $250,
to leave his home for Damascus, but he refused, Next
morning he was found killed in cold blood and his
household turned over the dead body.”?

83. These crimes merit a place in history beside the Nazi
atrocities. Should there be any doubt as to the veracity of
the account given, I would ask the Council to listen to this
open letter addressed by eighty-five Israeli intellectuals to
the Israeli Press on 3 March 1968:

“Dear Sir,

“We have the honour to forward to you a declaration,
asking you to publish it,

8 Official Records of the Security Council, Twenty-second Year,
Supplement for July, August and September 1967, document
8/8077.

9 Ibid., Twenty-third Year, Supplement for July, August and
September 1968, document $/8689,

“The declaration reads:

“ Stop the violation of human rights in Israel and in
the occupied territories.

“ ‘Details were published in the areas about what is
happening in Israel and in the occupied territories:

“ ‘Confinement orders, limitations of free movement
and arrests without trial were recently imposed on Israeli
citizens, Jews and Arabs.

* “The imposition of collective punishments, like the
curfew and the dynamiting of houses, continues in the
towns and villages of the occupied territories at an
alarming rate. Families of workers and fellaheen, children,
women and old people, remain without shelter and means
of existence. The stream of refugees and escapers from
the Gaza Strip and from the west bank of the Jordan
continues unabatedly.

“ ‘An increasing number of Arabs is driven out of the
western bank by order of the Israeli military governor. A
protest petition published in the western bank stated:
“These methods are opposed to international standards
and to the basic rights of the citizen to live in his home
and on his soil. Enforced exile on political grounds
reminds us of the British colonial rule.” ’

“Where do these methods lead to if not into an abyss of
hatred?

“Acts like these will only strengthen the resistance and
the underground movement, multiply victims on both
sides, and lead to another war, with an unforeseeable
number of casualties.

“The domination of another people exposes the subduing people itself to moral degeneration and undermines
its democracy. Any people oppressing another one is
bound to lose its own freedom and the freedom of its
citizens.

“Jewish citizens, remember those courageous gentiles
who stood by us in times of distress! Now that disaster
has befallen the fraternal Arab people, can you deem fit
to remain aloof and to keep silent? ”

84. With your permission, Sir, I should like to elaborate
on one point. We have complained about the new Israeli
settlements, now thirty-eight in number, in the occupied
Arab territories called Nahal. Nine of these are established
on Syrian soil. Their exact locations were given in annex I
to my letter of 18 June 1968 [S/8643].

85. The Israeli representative sitting on my right has
repeatedly stated that:

“The Nahal Corps... are military units of the Israeli
Defence Forces and their activities are designed to assist
in ensuring the security of the area and in maintaining the
cease-fire.”
This was stated by Mr. Tekoah in his letter of 27 June 1968
[5/8654]. But on 2 July 1968 the Jewish Telegraph
Agency stated:

“The Golan Heights, occupied in the June 1967 war,
will be converted into a summer resort area, the Israeli
Parks Authority announced. The plateau enjoys relatively
coo] weather during the summer months.”

86. However, that is not all the story, for on 15 July 1968
the Jewish Post stated, under the heading “Golan slated as
cattle land”, the following:

“Plans to graze massive herds of cattle on the Golan
Heights were announced by the Jewish Agency Settlement Department yesterday. The plans envisage 15,000
head of cattle on 600,000 dunums of natural pasture.

“The Department’s calculations show that Golan meat
production could make it possible to cut Israel's imports
by a quarter.”

87. As described in the American-Jewish Yearbook, the
Jewish Agency, American Section, which was mentioned
previously represents in the United States the Executive of
the Jewish Agency for Israel and Jerusalem, which is
recognized by the State of Israel as the authorized agency
to work in Israel for development and colonization, the
absorption and settlement of immigrants and the coordination of activities of Jewish institutions and associations operating in these fields.

88. We should like to stop a moment here to see whether
we are now lving in the second half of the twentieth
century, the third decade of the United Nations, or if
history has been put'back a hundred years to the time when
Western colonial expansion was grabbing lands in Asia and
Africa for the white settlers, displacing the indigenous
population to lighten or discharge the white man’s burden.
No, this is not 1830 or 1870 or even 1900. This is
September 1968, the season of the opening of the
twenty-third session of the General Assembly,

89. We have time and again listened to Mr. Tekoah
denying the charges of inhuman, nazi-type treatment of
prisoners of war and of torture inflicted arbitrarily and with
impunity on Arab refugees, over a hundred thousand of
whom were made refugees twice in their lifetimes. I have
with me here records of at least 120 cases, all of which, I
submit, are established beyond any doubt, The names of
the camps, the numbers of the tents, the locations, the
dates and the details of the inhuman acts are given in full
detail, so that the Council may check on their accuracy,
and I hope this will be done.

90. Between the dates of adoption of the two humanitatian resolutions whose implementation we are discussing
today, several committees and one conference which are
dealing, in this Year of Human Rights, with the implementation of human rights, have looked carefully into the
situation of the Arab civilian population in the Israelioccupied territories. I want to mention these,

91. The Economic and Social Council adopted resolution
1336 (XLIV) on 20 June 1968, which endorsed resolu-

10

tion 6 (XXIV) entitled “Question of human rights in the
territories occupied as a result of hostilities in the Middle
East”, adopted by the Commission on Human Rights at its
twenty-fourth session.

92. The Commission on Human Rights, after recalling the
Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the two humanitarian resolutions we are
discussing, stated in paragraph 2 of that resolution:

“Affirms the right of all the inhabitants who have left
since the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East to
return and that the Government concerned should take
the necessary measures in order to facilitate the return of
those inhabitants to their own country without delay”.

93. There was also a resolution adopted by the Teheran
Conference. The representative of the United Arab Republic has already quoted that, and so I will not deal
with it.

94. On 8 March 1968 the Chairman of the Commission on
Human Rights sent a telegram to the Government of Israel
upon the decision of the Commission at its 990th meeting
on 8 March, which read:

“The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is
distressed to learn from newspapers of Israeli acts of
destroying homes of Arab civilian population inhabiting
the areas occupied by the Israeli authorities subsequent to
the hostilities of June 1967. The Commission on Human
Rights calls upon the Government of Israel to desist
forthwith from indulging in such practices and to respect
human rights and fundamental freedoms.”10

95. These resolutions, adopted by United Nations bodies
other than the Security Council, should remind this Council
of the gravity of the situation and the dimensions of the
human problem involved in this Arab tragedy. It is enough
to make it a binding and imperative duty upon us not only
to condemn Israel for its acts and its violation of human
rights, but to confirm in unequivocal terms the mandate
given to the Secretary-General to appoint a special repre
sentative, without allowing the aggressor State to prevent
such a representative from going into the area.

96. It is not unusual in this Council to hear the representative of Israel make appeals for peace. Nor is it unusual for
Arab representatives to ridicule them as hypocritical pleas,
for we have had twenty years’ experience of Israeli
occupation and seventy-five years of a vicious campaign of
defamation, vilification and hate waged by world Zionism
and Israel against the Arabs. Suffice it to say that the
Israelis have devised every way and means to prevent the
implementation of the two humanitarian resolutions, purposely to perpetuate the tragedy of the new refugees as
they have in the past twenty-one years prolonged the
tragedy of the old refugees.

97. This time, however, in commenting upon Mr, Tekoah’s
pleas for peace, I will allow an Israehi leader, now a member

10 Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, Forty:
fourth Session, Supplement No. 4, para. 400.
of the Knesset, to answer Mr. Tekoah on his plea for peace
and in the way an Israeli Zionist understands peace. I am
referring specifically to a member of the Israeli Knesset
called Uri Avnery, a well-known writer whose latest book,
Israel without Zionists,!! appeared this year. He tells us on
page 103:

“Like most Israelis, Ben-Gurion was convinced that
making peace was entirely up to the Arabs, and that Israel
could do nothing to initiate it. Peace meant Arab
recognition of the status quo, from which Israel could not
and would not budge.”

98. On page 134 he quotes from a eulogy delivered by
Moshe Dayan at the funeral of an Israeli who had been
killed, citing this as Dayan’s credo:

“Let us not today fling accusations at the murderers.
Who are we that we should argue against their hatred?

“For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in
Gaza, and before their very eyes, we turn into our
homestead the land and the villages in which they and
their forefathers have lived.

“...We are a generation of settlers, and without the
steel helmet and the cannon we cannot plant a tree and
build a house.

“Let us not shrink back when we see the hatred
fermenting and filling the lives of hundreds of thousands
of Arabs, who sit all around us. Let us not ayert our eyes,
so that our hand shall not slip.

“This is the fate of our generation, the choice of our
life—to be prepared and armed, strong and tough—or
otherwise the sword will slip from our fist and our life
will be snuffed out.”

99. Uri Avnery makes a very good comment on this
remarkable speech:

“This is a stark philosophy, the philosophy of a
crusader who sees no doors open leading toward peace,
who believes that the very thought of peace is demoralizing.”

100. On page 135 he writes:

“An old story has it that a young kibbutz member,
when asked how he views the Arab problem answers:
‘Through the sights of a rifle’.”

101. To conclude, let me draw the attention of the
Bible-quoting Israeli representative to the words of an
ancient Hebrew Prophet, Habakkuk, chapter 2, verse 12:
“Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood and
establisheth a city by iniquity.”

102. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker on my list is the
representative of Israel to whom I give the floor.

11 The Macmillan Company, New York, 1968.

11

103. Mr. TEKQAH (Israel): The degree of deception and
guile in the complaint before the Security Council was
demonstrated at our last meeting when certain delegations
attacked Israel’s right of expression in this Council. The
true attitude of these delegations to human rights was
convincingly displayed when they threw themselves in fury
upon the grief and pain born of the persecution of Jews.

104. A quarter century after Hitler's concentration camps
were liquidated, Jews are lingering in Arab concentration
camps again, but the self-appointed champions of human
rights are trying to bar discussion of this tragedy by the
United Nations, despite the fact that this tragedy occupies a
prominent place in the documentation on which the
complaint before the Council is based. Innocent Jews are
being tortured again in prison, while in the Security Council
the cry “point of order” is sounded to prevent assistance to
them. Entire Jewish communities, oppressed and discriminated, plead for help, only to be answered here by the
cynical shout “point of order”. Anti-Jewish legislation is
promulgated and put into effect, but those to whom the
invocation of human rights is but another political game
scream “‘point of order”.

105. For some years now the Security Council has been
paralysed by the veto and the mechanical weight of
numbers in all questions concerning lsrael’s basic rights.
The world has become accustomed to the lack of equity
and effectiveness in Council deliberations in which Israel is
concerned. Lately, Security Council debates have been
plagued by another malady, the irresponsible use of the
device of “point of order”. This malady, if allowed to
continue, threatens to curtail freedom of expression in the
Council and deteriorate our discussions to a point of farce.

106. The Arab delegations and their supporters have tried
by devious arguments to dismiss the problem of oppression
of Jews in the Arab States in the wake of the June 1967
hostilities. It is not the first time that they come before the
Security Council proposing that justice and law be one
sided, that Israel be denied their application, and that
justice and law do not fetter the Arab States in their
aggression against Israel.

107. However, no callous misinterpretations, no cynical
denials can screen the enormity of the tragedy that has
befallen Jewry in the Arab States since June 1967. Their
suffering, their tears, their agony, will not be suppressed by
speeches or votes in the Security Council. The entire world
is witness to their torment. Not a single report has appeared
that would allay concern for their fate or detract from the
gravity of their situation. On the contrary, even sources
friendly to the Arab States could not conceal the grim,
horrid facts,

108. Irene Beeson, frequently quoted here by the Arab
representatives in support of their claims, writes from Cairo
in The Scotsman of 10 August 1968 of a conversation she
had with ninety-year old Rabbi Haim Douek who had
himself been arrested by the Egyptian authorities and
released only after several months. According to her report:
“At the time of the June war, about 500 Egyptian and
other Jews were rounded up and interned, he said, He did
not think that Red Cross officials had been allowed to visit
the Egyptian Jews in detention.”
109. In a dispatch from Cairo, Eric Pace reports in The
New York Times on 10 September 1968:

“None of the more than 200 Jews who have remained
in prison since the war in 1967 have been released this

year . ..

“About 220 men are now thought to be held in Toura
prison outside Cairo.

“A number of others who were jailed after the outbreak
of war were released last year, but there has been no
indication in recent months that any more would be set
free.”

110. The Washington Post of 4 September 1968 states:

“ an estimated 250 Jews remain in confinement,
principally in the al-Thoura prison near Cairo. Other Jews
freed previously have alleged that they were forced by
prison officers to submit to sexual perversion and other
indignities and were beaten and tortured.”

111. At the last meeting I described at length the
persecution of Jews in Syria resulting from the June
hostilities.

112. An American citizen sent a letter on 12 September
1968 to Congressman Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., with
copies to a number of missions at the United Nations, in
which he writes:

“I would like to express my deep gratitude for the
attention and steady co-operation that you have given me
regarding my family which is still in Damascus, Syria.

“The latest reports that we have received indicate that
the situation of the Jewish communities of Damascus,
Aleppo, and Kamishli is worsening,

“The recent report by the Secretary-General of the
United Nations on the projected new humanitarian
mission to the Middle East, contained a letter from the
Syrian representative in which he stated that the new
mission should not include ‘Jewish communities in Syria
or other Arab countries, victims of the Israeli war of
aggression of 5 June 1967,

“Does he feel that if Syria and other Arab countries
failed in the battlefield to conquer the Army of Israel,
then they would have the right to inflict damage and
sufferings upon innocent civilians simply because they
happen to be of the Jewish faith? ”

113. In a document dated 16 May 1968, the United States
Mission declared:

“Information on the Jews in Syria is limited. However,
it is reliably reported that the Jews are being subjected to
a variety of forms of harassment, discrimination, and
restriction. We are also aware that no Jews are seemingly

allowed to leave the country and that most would leave if .

permitted . . .

12

_ “...it is understood that the Secretary-General’s Representative will also look into and report on the situation
of Jewish communities in Arab countries ... we will
make clear to the Secretary-General our specific interest
in that aspect of his Representative’s mission.”

114. Numerous reports have also appeared on the dire
plight of Iraqi Jews. On 4 May 1968 The New York Times
reported:

“Remnants of the centuries-old Jewish community in
Iraq face virtual economic strangulation . .

“The plight of the Jews described as desperate...
stems from a new series of decrees giving the Iraqi
Government control over nearly all Jewish sources of
income.”

115, The American Examiner of 9 November 1967 in an
article entitled “Iraq steps up persecution of Jews”, states:

“The Government promotes anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish propaganda through the newspapers, the radio and
TV. In the beginning it endeavoured to differentiate in
its attacks between Zionists and Jews, but now rarely
makes this distinction.”

116. The situation of Jews in the Arab States since June
1967 was considered grave enough for Mr. Gussing, the
Secretary-General’s first representative on humanitarian
matters, to concern himself with it. The situation of Jews in
Iraq is considered woeful enough for the Secretary-General
himself to have taken it up repeatedly with the Government
of Iraq. Yet the Arab delegations and the sponsors of the
draft resolution in document S/8825/Rev.2 would have it
ignored. :

117. To the Arab delegations, the imprisonment of innocent Jews, the oppression of Jewish communities, the
starvation of Jewish families, the adoption of anti-Jewish
laws, the refusal to allow outside observers to come into
contact with this situation, are not a question of human
rights.

118. What then is a human-rights problem? The Jordanian
representative has given the Council some interesting views
on this point. Can it seriously be contended that humanitarian issues are involved when Israeli mini-skirts appear in
town or when Arab inhabitants buy Israeli goods? Can it
really be claimed that the welfare and security of the local
population are threatened by the fact that over a period of
sixteen months, eleven individuals, confessed agents of
Jordanian terror warfare are asked to cross the cease-fire
line and join their employers in Amman rather than
continue to undermine public law and order in Israel:
controlled territory? The Arab delegations are up in arms
when three Arab women who have engaged themselves in
organizing terror attacks against Jewish women and chil
dren are arrested, and International Red Cross represents
tives are invited to visit them regularly as they visit other
detainees. The Arab delegations see red because a house
found to be a terror-warfare centre or an arms store i
blown up in accordance with local Jordanian or Egyptian
laws—I repeat, in accordance with local Jordanian of
Egyptian laws. The Arab delegations raise a cry that Arab
inhabitants who left the area of hostilities before or
together with the retreating armies of aggression suffered
the results of the aggression unleashed by their own
Governments,

119. This to them characterizes the general situation: not
the freedom of movement within the Israel-administered
areas and outside them; not the freedom of expression; not
the fact that all local authorities continue to function as
before June 1967; that schools, hospitals, public services
are operating normally; that the local economy is being
assisted in raising the shockingly low standard of life at
which the Arab occupiers had kept the inhabitants of the
west bank and Gaza. Nor is it of any interest to the Arab
representatives that Jews and Arabs are showing that they
can live peacefully side by side and work together.

120. Today’s statements by the representatives of the
United Arab Republic and Syria have continued in the same
spirit of perfidy and deception. Like the allegations made
by the representative of Jordan, they were based on wilful
distortions incorporated in numerous letters circulated by
them in the past as Security Council documents and fully
repudiated in Israeli replies similarly circulated. The degree
of veracity in those claims is illustrated, for instance, by the
Jordanian statement that “the Israelis have forced prisoners
of war to take part in services of military produetion, which
would be used in war operations against their country”. It
so happens that the agreement for the exchange of
prisoners of war was signed by me personally with the
representatives of the Jordanian Government on 6 August
1967 and immediately implemented.

121. To all the Arab representatives and to their supporters I should like to point out the following.

122. War is a grim, sanguinary and tragic development. It
inevitably brings grief and results in suffering for the
civilian population on both sides. We have been telling this
to our Arab neighbours for twenty years. We have been
exhorting them to end the war and not to continue with
their acts of aggression against Israel's territory and Israel’s
citizens, The Arab Governments, by their refusal, are
directly responsible for the present situation. By continuing
to wage war on us, they have brought it upon themselves
and their peoples. They can hardly complain now of the
consequences of their own criminal policy and actions.
They still pursue warfare against Israel. Israel is still
compelled by them to put its security before other
considerations.

123. End the war, liquidate the twenty-year conflict,
abandon aggression, conclude peace with Israel, and the
present situation will change and there will be no room for
concern on our part or on yours for the effects of war on
civilian populations.

124, The Arab States are not justified in their complaints
for yet another reason. At the last meeting I recalled
Jordan’s attitude to human rights, Jordan’s destruction of
all Jewish communities in territory under its control and
Jordan’s sacrilege against Jewish religious sites. Today,
Egypt and Syria have come to the Security Council to

13

speak in the name of law and justice and human rights. We
categorically reject the right of these States to arrogate to
themselves that prerogative. One cannot forget what these
countries stand for, what their policy and their behaviour
have been and continue to be,

125. Egypt remains the leader of Arab aggression against
Israel. Egypt has for years trampled underfoot international
law, United Nations resolutions and obligations undertaken
in bilateral agreements with Israel. Egypt is the State that
killed Yemeni civilians with poison gas and bombarded
peaceful villages in Saudi Arabia. It is the State that for
nineteen years shut up hundreds of thousands of refugees in
the Gaza Strip, depriving them of freedom of movement,
barring them from leaving the area even to go to Egypt
itself in search of work and keeping them under continuous
curfew.

126. Here is what Radio Mecca of Saudi Arabia has to say
about the methods of repression used by the Egyptian
occupation authorities in the Gaza area. In a broadcast on
10 March 1962, Mecca Radio stated:

“These are the very methods which the dictator Hitler
used in the countries he occupied during the World War.
Imagine, Arabs, how Nasser, who claims to be the pioneer
of Arab nationalism, treats the Arab people of Gaza
—Gaza and its miserable people who starve while the
Egyptian Governor of Gaza and his officers and soldiers
bask in the wealth of the Strip.”

It is the same Egypt that since June 1967 has persecuted
Jews, kept hundreds of heads of Jewish families in
concentration camps, Subjecting them to torture and
inhuman perversities.

127. Then there is Syria which has written horrifying
chapters in the cruelty of man to man: kidnapping Israeli
citizens, keeping them in prison for five, ten and fifteen
years without even admitting their imprisonment, exposing
them to the abuse of Syrian officers and officials before
returning them as shadows of men, broken in mind and
body. Syria, oppressing Jews and persecuting Christians and
Kurds, cannot be recognized as an exponent of human
rights. Syria, which has refused to co-operate with the
United Nations peace efforts, Syria which continues to
violate the Charter of the United Nations in relation to
Israel, is not entitled to remonstrate on matters of law and
justice.

128. ‘These States cannot appear before the Council in the
role of accusers. They are the accused.

129. As at the previous meeting, I shall allow detached
observers to answer their falsifications regarding the situation in areas under Israeli control.

130. The London Daily Telegraph of 30 April 1968
declares:

“Israel’s occupation of conquered territories has been
the most human and generous in modern history, even
more so than the American occupation of Japan after

World War II.
“Economic conditions for Arabs in the occupied
territories are improving. Many of them, even the
professional refugees, are better off than they have ever
been before,

“On its record so far, Israel can have a clear conscience
before the United Nations or any other international bar
on its handling of the occupied Arab territories.”

131. We are satisfied to rest our case on this kind of
testimony repeated in numerous similar reports by observers from all parts of the world. There has not been a
single report in this spirit describing the conditions of Jews
in Arab States.

132. In any event, as I explained at the last meeting, Israel
has no objection to a second United Nations humanitarian
mission’s examining the situation itself, We still wait to hear
that the Arab Governments are ready to take a similar
constructive position with regard to the situation of Jews in
their territories since June 1967.

133. The reasons why the Arab Governments oppose a
United Nations investigation of the oppression of Jews in
their lands are obvious. They have barred not only United
Nations representatives from looking into this problem,
claiming as the Nazis used to that persecution of Jews is not
of international concern but an internal matter, but they
have also refused to allow delegates of the International
Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations to visit the
prisons and concentration camps in which Jews have been
detained as a result of last year’s hostilities, The Arab
Governments are undoubtedly the best judges of what
conclusions would be reached by impartial international
investigation of this grave problem.

134. How do the Arab States explain this refusal? Their
argument is as simple as it is untenable.

135. Resolution 237 (1967) of the Security Council addresses itself to “Governments concerned”. The Arab States
suggest that this should be interpreted as applying only to
one Government concerned. The draft resolution before the
Council accepts this distortion as its basis. The preamble
and operative paragraph 2 of resolution 237 (1967) make it
plain that international concern extends over the Middle
East region as a whole.

136. The Arab States would now have this resolution
misinterpreted, its preamble and operative paragraph 2
ignored.

137. The area of conflict to which resolution 237 (1967)
applies was defined for the purpose of the first humanitarian mission as including the Arab States and the situation
of Jews affected by the June 1967 hostilities. A year later
the Arab delegations suggest that Arab States should be
excluded from the framework of the area of conflict. This
area is to be defined, according to them, not on the basis of
participation in the conflict, and not even on the basis of
the area of actual hostilities, but by reference to one side of
the cease-fire lines. This is too odd and blatantly one-sided
a definition to be worthy of serious consideration. It is as
strange as the view which suggests that Iraq, where the

14

situation of Jews has deterioriated to such an extent since
the first humanitarian mission that the Secretary-General
himself has taken up the matter repeatedly with the Iraqi
Government, should now be left outside the scope of the
mission, because Iraq allegedly was not in the area where
military operations took place. It would require a consid.
erable rewriting of history to vindicate such a proposition.

138. The Arab representatives have continued to argue
here today that the Security Council resolution 237 (1967)
in its reference to the area of conflict should be interpreted
as applying only to the territories under Israel occupation,
That this is contrary to law and reason had been made clear
again in the introduction to the Secretary-General’s annual
report!2 in which the Secretary-General clearly distin.
guishes in paragraph 44 of the document between ‘‘the area
of the conflict of June 1967 and the occupied territories
which obviously are only part of that area.

139. Resolution 237 (1967) has been and continues to he
implemented by Israel. Israel is fully discharging its
responsibility for the safety, welfare and security of the
inhabitants of all Israel-held territories and will continue to
do so. All that Israel asks is that resolution 237 (1967) be
implemented also by the Arab States, so that in accordance
with its provisions the Jews in Arab countries victimized
since June 1967 be spared suffering and their essential and
inalienable human rights be respected.

140. We are a small people, and only cone of the 125
Members of the United Nations. Yet we are right in
opposing the distortion of resolution 237 (1967), right in
objecting to a humanitarian resolution being turned into an
anti-humanitarian text and right in insisting that human
rights of Jews and Arabs alike should be upheld.

141. The world knows that we are right, and if again the
suffering of Jews is derided and dismissed it will understand
that Israel cannot acquiesce in such a disgraceful travesty of
justice.

142. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(translated from Russian): It is no fortuitous question that
the Security Council is now discussing, namely, Israel's
failure to implement Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14
June 1967 and its refusal to permit a special representative
of the Secretary-General to enter the Arab territories it has
occupied in order to investigate the situation of the Arab
inhabitants, temporarily subjected to the aggressor’s author-

ity.

143. The Security Council is dealing with yet another
manifestation of one and the same Israeli policy of
aggression in the Near East, a policy pursued by the ruling
circles of Tel Aviv in violation of the United Nations
Charter and the decisions of the Security Council, and in
defiance of the will of the majority of States Members of
the United Nations and of world public opinion.

144. The nature of the aggression is such that the
aggressor is flouting international legality in many direc-

12 Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-third
Session, Supplement No. 14.
tions at once, one of them being the perpetration of
violence and terror against the population of the occupied
territories.

145. In their statements, the representatives of Jordan, the
United Arab Republic and Syria have given many examples,
facts and proofs of the way in which the Israeli authorities
are spurning human dignity and wreaking violence and
terror upon the population of the Arab territories which
they have occupied. Documents have been read out,
including numerous letters and statements filled with anger
and indignation from persons suffering under the yoke of
the foreign invaders. These represent the voice of the
suffering Arab population and are a fierce protest against
the aggressor’s crimes.

146. The question of the situation of the Arab population
subjected to the aggressor’s yoke and the dispatch to the
Near East of a special representative of the Secretary-General for humanitarian purposes is not a narrow or
private question; it is an integral part of a problem of
fundamental importance, affecting the rights and interests
of all the peoples of the Near East—the problem of
eradicating with all possible speed the consequences of the
Israeli aggression against the Arab States.

147, In his statement, the Israeli representative addressed
an appeal to the representatives of the Arab countries. But
before making appeals, it is necessary to settle the main
problem, that of withdrawing the Israeli forces from the
occupied territories, The question will then resolve itself.

148. We have to point out in that connexion that, as long
ago as June of last year, immediately after Israel’s attack
upon the Arab countries, and on the basis of the first
disturbing reports of the aggressor’s excesses and brutalities
in the occupied Arab territories, the Security Council
adopted its resolution 237 (1967), in which it called upon
the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and
security of the inhabitants of the areas temporarily under
its occupation.

149. That resolution, which pursued so lofty a humanitarian goal, was in itself a direct indictment of the aggressor.
It 'was intended as a serious warning to Israel to avoid a
policy of coercion and lawlessness in regard to the Arab
population temporarily subjected to the invaders’ power.
But the aggressor did not heed the warning, He has
committed, and continues to commit, acts of lawlessness in
the occupied Arab territories, and has established a régime
of tyranny and repression there. The aggressor has adopted
the policy of assimilating occupied Arab lands with, as a
. consequence, the expulsion of the Arab population from its
native soil, the destruction of Arab villages and the
demolition and levelling to the ground of whole blocks of
dwellings in the towns. Measures are being taken to annex
and “Israelize” the Arab sector of Jerusalem.

150. This policy of aggression and repression that Israel is
pursuing is the cause of the deep hatred felt by the Arab
population for the aggressor as it groans under the
occupiers’ yoke.

151. The régime of terror and violence which the Israeli
authorities have established on Arab soil is clear evidence of

15

the aggressor’s true character and of his reckless expan.
sionist intentions.

152, The aggressor fears exposure; hence .the Israeli
authorities’ refusal to allow a special representative of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations to enter the
occupied territories. If Israel were not conscious of its guilt
and of its responsibility for the wrong done to the Arab
peoples, if it were not afraid that an international inquiry
into the facts would fully expose the crimes committed on
Arab soil and would heap new disgrace on the aggressor and
yet another condemnation by world public opinion, it
would not be placing obstacles in the way of the admission

f a special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to the areas which are illegally under its control as
a result of the aggression of June 1967.

153. Obviously Israel's hypocritical attempts to invent
excuses for its refusal to implement Security Council
resolution 237 (1967) on the dispatch of a special repre.
sentative of the United Nations Secretary-General to the
occupied Arab territories cannot be taken seriously. Those
excuses are fabrications, and are in themselves evidence of
Israel's expansionist policy, directed to intervention in the
domestic affairs of the Arab States.

154. In this connexion, it is pertinent to draw attention
once more to a most important international document
—the resolution recently adopted by so authoritative a
body as the International Conference on Human Rights,
There is no need to go into it in detail; the representative of
the United Arab Republic has already referred to it. It
should, however, be emphasized that, in this resolution
adopted by an eminent international body such as the
International Conference on Human Rights, grave concern
is expressed for the violation of human rights in Arab
territories as a result of the hostilities in June 1967.

155. This resolution specifically draws Israel’s attention to
the grave consequences resulting from disregard of funda
mental freedoms and human rights in occupied territories.
It specifically calls upon the Government of Israel to desist
forthwith from destroying homes of the Arab civilian
population inhabiting areas occupied by Israel, and to
respect and implement the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

156. What is happening at the present time in the Arab
territories occupied by Israel again confronts the Security
Council and the United Nations most forcibly with that
most important and vital question: the necessity for the
speediest eradication of the consequences of the Isracli
aggression, the necessity for the speediest withdrawal of the
Israeli forces from Arab territories and the necessity for a
political settlement in the Near East through the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22
November 1967.

157. Of course the Security Council cannot disregard the
criminal actions of the Israeli authorities in the occupied
Arab territories or the sufferings which the aggressor is
inflicting upon the Arab population.

158. It must, unfortunately, be noted that the consultations among the members of the Security Council have
dragged on for too long. The reason is that several members
of the Security Council have fallen ill and are beginning to
suffer from a disease which might, perhaps, be called
“implementation phobia”. The external symptoms of this
disease are fear and dread of implementing not only those
resolutions for which these members of the Security
Council voted but even those resolutions which they
themselves submitted to the Council. At the time they
submitted those resolutions, they were apparently in better
health and were not infected with this dangerous disease.
Fortunately, the disease has not assumed epidemic proportions. There are healthy forces in the Security Council with
sufficient effective immunity against the virus of this
strange disease. This has made it possible for the members
of the Council, after lengthy consultations, to find a basis
for the preparation of a draft resolution—the revised draft
resolution submitted by the delegations of Pakistan and
Senegal, which is now before us. In view of the gravity of
the matter under discussion and its humanitarian character,
any attempts to secure further postponemerit of a decision
on the question would be inadmissible.

159. The draft resolution submitted by Pakistan and
Senegal [8/8825/Rev.2] should be examined at today’s
‘meeting and put to the vote; it should not be put off to the
next meeting, particularly since we do not know when the
next meeting will take place, in view of the fact that the
United Nations is now busy with the twenty-third session
of the General Assembly.

160. Because of the Israeli authorities’ refusal to comply
with the Security Council's resolution 237 (1967) and to
admit a special representative of the United Nations
Secretary-General to those territories, notwithstanding all
the Secretary-General’s efforts and the attention he has
paid to this important humanitarian question, the Council
must decisively condemn Israel, approve this resolution and
demand its immediate implementation.

161. The draft resolution submitted by the representatives
of Pakistan and Senegal, despite its inadequacy, by and
large answers that purpose; the USSR delegation therefore
supports it and will vote in favour of it.

162. Mr. BOUATTOURA (Algeria) (translated from
French): The Council finds itself in a position which is
both unfortunate and of frequent occurrence, As the
Council has been informed, and whatever other assertions
may be made, Israel is setting conditions for the execution
of a humanitarian mission, conditions which it knows in
advance will be unacceptable, so that it need not account
for the living conditions of the populations displaced in
consequence of its expansionist policy.

163. The Security Council is discussing a mission which
was clearly defined in its resolution 237 (1967); the
execution of the humanitarian mission awaits only the
removal of the obstacles and conditions imposed by Israel,

164, There is litile hope that Israel will take such action,
for its unavowed aim, in allegedly espousing the cause ‘of all
minorities of the earth, is to sow dissension among the
different national elements within each State and to create
an atmosphere of suspicion towards their minorities.

16

165. That is undoubtedly the object which Israel is now
endeavouring to achieve, for it is seeking acceptance of the
principle of dual allegiance which would give it a form of
permanent jurisdiction over the citizens of all countries
wha are of the Jewish faith.

166. We do not concede such jurisdiction to Israel, but we
are perfectly clear about the goal pursued, What Israel
wants, essentially, is to set in motion, or increase, a flow of
immigration prompted by fear or hatred, a flow which
would enable it both to increase the size of its population
and to occupy and colonize the newly conquered territories
after they have been systematically cleared of their populations, who would thus swell the ranks of the refugees. This
goal obviously runs directly counter to the humanitarian
mission on which the Council decided.

167. Moreover, Israel refuses to account for the manner in
which it is administering the occupied territories; this does
not surprise us, given the measures and arrangements which
have been adopted with a view to nothing less than the
outright annexation of the invaded regions.

168. lsrael’s entire position rests both on this outright
annexation and on the refusal to draw the obvious
conclusions from such an attitude with respect to the
populations under its control. Israel's policy is, indeed,
twofold: to seize territories and place them under its
effective control, while at the same time declining all
political responsibility for the predictable consequences of
such annexation. Israel refuses to admit that its occupation
generates and strengthens Palestinian resistance, and whether out of blindness or political design, prefers to place the
responsibility for these consequences on the Arab countries.

169. This attitude explains the repeated meetings of the
Security Council during the last few months and the acts of
retaliation which Israel has carried out against the Arab
countries. Can anyone here dispute the fact that this policy
of repression of the indigenous population and of outright
intimidation has greatly reinforced the attitude of active
resistance of the Palestinian population?

170. The systematic dynamiting of Arab houses in occupied territory has seriously aggravated the plight of the
inhabitants, who are swelling the ranks of the homeless, and
has repeatedly attracted the attention of international
opinion,

171. Israel alone, caught up in the fervour of its Messianic
mission and clearly concerned to recreate the kingdom of
David by fire and the sword, is still unaware of the situation
or prefers to close its eyes to it.

172. The humanitarian mission under discussion has a
specific purpose which far transcends the political considerations in which an attempt is being made to engulf us.
That mission must be upheld, as correctly defined by the
Council and the Secretary-General, for several reasons.
Firstly, to take any other course would be to perpetrate a
legal enormity; it would mean confirming Israel’s jurisdiction over all Jews in the world, regardless of differences in
nationality. Secondly, recognition of such a claim would
inevitably cause public opinion, which is only just beginning to glimpse the depths of Israeli Machiavellianism, to
harbour doubts with regard to a certain category of
citizens. The sole result of such a surrender would be to
increase immigration to Israel, that is, to compound the
injury inflicted on the Palestinians, whose exodus would be
intensified.

© 173. It should be possible to relieve the present sufferings
of the displaced populations very speedily in accordance
with the spirit permeating the Secretary-General’s note of
31 July 1968 [5/8699], from which it is clear that
resolution 237 (1967) must be put into effect without
delay and to the letter.

174. Lij Endalkachew MAKONNEN (Ethiopia): As one of
the original co-sponsors of resolution 237 (1967) of 14
June 1967, 1 consider it my duty to make some brief
comments at this stage of our deliberations in order to
explain and clarify the position of my delegation both with
regard to resolution 237 (1967) and, in particular, with
regard to the present draft resolution submitted by the
delegations of Senegal and Pakistan contained in document
S/8825/Rev.2, a draft resolution which we recognize as a
follow-up of the first decision.

175. 1 must say from the very outset that in sponsoring
resolution 237 (1967) our primary purpose was to ensure
the safety, welfare and security of peoples who had been
directly affected by the military conflict of June 1967 and,
more particularly, those people inhabiting the territories
which came under Israeli military control during and
subsequent to that conflict. Therefore, in requesting the
Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of
resolution 237 (1967) and to report to the Security Council
in due course, we took special care not to specify any rigid
course of action which would have made it difficult for him
to carry out the mandate given under that resolution, and
we chose instead to create a framework within which the
Secretary-General would have the latitude and discretion to
find the best ways and means for the accomplishment of
the mission entrusted to him. We thank the Secretary-General and commend him for his efforts, and we trust that
he will continue those efforts in the future,

176. The Secretary-General’s note of 31 July 1968
[8/8699] shows in fact that whereas he did succeed in
sending a Special Representative at the initial stage of his
efforts, subsequent progress towards the fulfilment of
resolution 237 (1967) could not be made because of certain
conditions advanced by the Government of Israel with
regard to the scope of that resolution. The representative of
Israel repeated the same conditions in his statement at our
last meeting and sought to give to resolution 237 (1967) an
interpretation which would, in our view, go far beyond the
terms and purposes of that resolution.

177. While always ready to consider with attention and
sympathy the submissions of Member Governments on
problems and issues that preoccupy them, I must say, in all
frankness and with all due respect to those who may feel
otherwise, that my delegation cannot share that interpretation of resolution 237 (1967) and cannot therefore
accept the conditions that emanate from it.

17

178. This is not to say that we are unconcerned about or
uninterested in the necessity of universal respect for
religious freedom. On the contrary, I want to make it
absolutely clear where Ethiopia stands in this regard, As a
multireligious society and as a country with a long
tradition of respect for all religions and faiths, Ethiopia
upholds the principle of freedom of religion as a fundamental human right for all peoples everywhere. By the same
token, we condemn all policies and practices aimed at
religious persecution and all discrimination on grounds of
race, religion, colour or creed. Thus our position on the
matters of principle is clear beyond any doubt.

179. However, we cannot but maintain that resolution
237 (1967) and the present draft resolution before us deal
with the specific problem of the safety, welfare and
security of Arab populations affected by the occupation
that followed the war of Jume 1967, in those areas in
particular that are under Israeli military occupation. That
being the situation as we see it, we find the present draft
resolution, submitted by the delegations of Senegal and
Pakistan, to be both appropriate and relevant since it
attempts to ensure the continuity of the Secretary-General’s effort by providing a clear and reasonable
framework for his continued endeavour in this regard.

180. The draft resolution does nothing more than deplore
the delay caused by the introduction of extensive conditions by Israel and only calls on Israel to accept a special
representative of the Secretary-General, while recommending at the same time “that the Secretary-General be
afforded all co-operation in his efforts to bring about the
implementation of the present resolution and resolution
237 (1967). This we find to be a proper course of action
for the Security Council to take.

181. I realize that neither Israel nor the Arab States will
be fully satisfied with the draft resolution before us. In a
situation of this kind it is difficult, if not impossible, to
satisfy all sides, and the Council, for its part, must
endeavour to base its action not so much on who is right,
but rather on what is right, and must go ahead to do what it
deems to be fair and just.

182. I believe that, in the circumstances and in the light of
the report of the Secretary-General, the course of action
proposed in the draft resolution before us is fair and just;
and, therefore, should the revised draft be put to a vote as
it stands, my delegation will not deny that draft its support.

183. Mr. PARTHASARATHI (India): For the last several
days the Security Council has deliberated on the Secretary-General’s report. [Ibid.] The Secretary-General has given a
detailed account of his efforts to send another mission to
West Asia. The purpose of this mission is to collect
first-hand information on the conditions of civilian populations in areas under the military control of Israel since June
1967. This objective has not so far been achieved because
of the conditions laid down by Israel for receiving a Special
Representative of the Secretary-General. It is on these
attempts to broaden the terms and scope of investigation
that the projected mission has foundered.

184. There can be no doubt about what the Secretary-General has been requested to do by the Council, Equally,
there -is general agreement around this table on the
desirability and urgency of getting full information on the
condition of civilian populations in the area of conflict in
West Asia. What, then, are the obstacles that have come in
the way of the implementation of resolution 237 (1967)?
My delegation believes that in this context two elements
need to be considered.

185, First, it is well known that the Security Council's
humanitarian concern with the civilian populations originated in the conflict of June of last year and is reflected in
its unanimously adopted resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June
1967. In paragraph 1 of this resolution the Council specifically called upon Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and
security of the inhabitants of areas where military operations had just taken place. The language of this paragraph
makes it quite clear that the scope of the inquiry is limited
to the occupied areas.

186. Second, the task of the Special Representative is
quite simple and unambiguous. It is to gather full information on the basis of which the Secretary-General can report
to the Security Council on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967).

187. In the light of the Secretary-General’s report one can
only draw the conclusion that the purposes and provisions
of the Council’s resolution 237 (1967) have not yet been
fulfilled.

188. We are deeply concerned about the plight of the
hundreds of thousands of Arab civilians who find themselves today under foreign occupation. Many of them have
lost their homes and hearths and had to flee their ancestral
places ,of residence for the second time in.a generation.
Their dire circumstances need to be ameliorated and their
fundamental human rights protected.

189. In the light of the foregoing remarks and in the larger
interest of reducing tensions in West Asia, we would urge
Israel to receive the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General and to facilitate his work by extending
him full co-operation. It is for this reason that my
delegation will support the draft resolution contained in
document S/8825/Rev.2.

190. Mr. CSATORDAY (Hungary): After lengthy consultations the Security Council, on the initiative of Pakistan
and Senegal, is now discussing the note by the Secretary-General dated 31 July 1968 [ibid./.

191. We have before us a draft resolution [S/8825/Rev.2]
submitted by the same two delegations. The draft resolution, while deploring in very mild terms the refusal of Israel
to receive the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, requests the dispatch of the Special Representative
to the Arab territories under Israeli military occupation and
a report by him on the implementation of resolution
237 (1967), and requests the Government of Israel to
receive him, to co-operate with him and to facilitate his
work.

192. 1 should have thought that a draft resolution constituting a logical follow-up to resolution 237 (1967) would

18

encounter no difficulties. Unfortunately, this is not the
case.

193. The discussions on this item at our 1453rd meeting
and at the present meeting have shown that the represen.
tative of Israel attempts to widen the scope of our debate
to include issues outside the framework of the subject
matter.

194. We listened with attention to the statement of the
representatives of Jordan, the United Arab Republic, Syria
and Algeria, representatives of Arab countries, who have
impressed us with a large number of facts marshalled in
favour of the urgency of the visit of the Special Represen.
tative to occupied Arab territories.

195. These irrefutable facts, contained in document $f
8820, among others, and widely reported by the interna.
tional Press have been contemptuously referred to by the
representative of Israel as “trash”. It is not too difficult to
understand Israel's interest in treating the facts of its
occupation rule in such a way and trying to shift our
discussion to matters outside the scope of this item. The
Security Council should not show any leniency towards
these attempts.

196. In considering this item, two problems emerge
concerning the manner in which the resolution should be
implemented. These problems are connected with the
subject of the resolution and have been raised by various
delegations and widely discussed. These two main aspects
are territory and population. This subject has been and
remains—until resolution 237 (1967) is superseded by
another text—a humanitarian problem, namely, “the safety,
welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where
military operations have taken place’ and the facility to be
given to “the return of those inhabitants who have fled the
areas since the outbreak of hostilities”, to quote the words
of resolution 237 (1967).

197. 1 do not think that there can be several interpre
tations of the term “areas where military operations have
taken place”. This term thus clearly defines those areas as
the areas of the Arab States which have been the objects of
Israel’s aggression and consequently of its illegal occupa
tion. Members of this Council have already referred to the
fact that the date and the context of the adoption of
resolution 237 (1967) exclude any other interpretation of
the areas concerned. It is significant that Israel itself has not
deemed it necessary to contest that interpretation before
the missions of Mr. Gussing and Mr. Thalmann. It is only
now that we have heard that the areas in question should
cover not only those envisaged in resolution 237 (1967) but
apparently all the areas of all States of the Middle East,
whether they were the scenes of military operations or not,
and even other countries that are concerned about the
developments in the Middle East.

198. The other aspect I wish to refer to is the problem of
population. As a pretext, in order to escape responsibility,
the representative of Israel frequently speaks of the Jewish
people and their sufferings and losses during the Second
World War, Thus he tries to confuse others with semantics
by abusing religious beliefs. International law does not

recognize Jewish citizenship. Mr. Tekoah can only refer to
Israeli citizens, and this expression applies to non-Jews as
well. He seems to ignore them completely, displaying thus a
clear-cut policy of discrimination against a large number of
Israeli citizens, as far as the application of human rights is
concerned.

199. 1 do not wish to enter into a discussion of this
problem, which is completely beyond the scope of our
present agenda. I wish, however, to emphasize that the
inhabitants of the occupied areas are not Israeli citizens, no
matter what religious or non-religious beliefs or convictions
they hold. Israel is responsible for implementing resolution
237 (1967) and the resolution that may be adopted by this
Council as a result of the present discussion, regarding the
humanitarian conditions of these Arab citizens, whatever
their religious beliefs may be.

200. As I have stated earlier, my delegation understands
that Israel is not anxious to provide access to the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General in the occupied
areas, in view of its policy, which is contrary, to the
provisions of resolution 237 (1967). However, that should
not influence the Council in its taking the necessary steps
required by that resolution. In so doing the Council will be
acting in full harmony with the views of the Secretary-General as set forth in his note. In the view of the
Hungarian delegation, the draft resolution is very modest in
its form and very careful in its wording. For all these
reasons, my delegation thinks that it should be supported
unanimously by the Council, and my delegation will most
certainly vote in favour of it.

201. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of
Syria, who wishes to exercise the right of reply.

202. Mr. TOMEH (Syria): I am fully aware of the lateness
of the hour. If I have asked for the floor in exercise of the
right of reply, it is not to dignify the Israeli representative’s
statement by a reply but to make the record clear for the
Security Council and to establish the facts.

203. I heard the Israeli representative say in his statement,
much to my amazement, that not a single report from an
international organization had been issued about the
situation of minorities in the Arab countries. However, if
you will remember, T quoted in my statement this time and
in my statement in August a letter addressed by the
International Red Cross Committee to the Syrian Government. I have also stated today that I have in my possession
two reports from the International Red Cross Committee,
whose representatives had been invited to Syria. As I have
quoted the second of the two reports, I shall permit myself
to read only the first paragraph of one of the two letters
addressed by the International Red Cross Committee to the
Syrian Government. It reads as follows:

“Damascus, 26 June 1968

“I have the honour to write to you, on the instructions
of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to
inform you of some of the Committee’s activities on
behalf of the victims of the events of June 1967.

19

“Before dealing with these matters, may I be permitted,
Your Excellency, to pay a tribute to your Government
and to the various Syrian authorities for the cordial
hospitality which the delegates of the International
Committee of the Red Cross have always enjoyed in your
country, and to thank you for the extensive facilities
which they have always been accorded.

“At our conferences and in our discussions abroad, we
never fail to emphasize the extent to which our task in
your country is facilitated by the understanding and
constant consideration which we receive in the Syrian
Arab Republic.

“I take this opportunity to express our deep gratitude
to all the authorities concerned.” 3

204, In view of this, I am bound to draw one or two
conclusions. Either the Israeli representative does not listen
to all that is said or he does not want to listen except to
himself. In either case the mental attitude is quite a
dangerous one. The Israeli representative referred again to
intolerance being practised in Syria and other Arab
countries against Christian minorities, Jewish minorities,
Kurds and so on. I have already replied in the Security
Council to these ridiculous fabrications of the imagination
of the Israeli representative, having been obliged to mention
once that I myself come from a Christian community of
Syria, one of the oldest Christian communities in the world,
and that Syria has always been proud of its record of
tolerance and is still proud of its record of tolerance in
regard to the treatment of all populations. In fact,
restrictions of religion or ethnic distinctions of any kind
have never existed there.

205. The Jews in Syria have always lived and still continue
to live in peace. If any trouble has taken place, it is due to
the Zionist movement which, as they themselves have
recognized, prior to the partition of Palestine established in
all Arab countries underground cells in order to undermine
the good relations that had always existed between the
Jewish communities and the citizens of the Arab countries
where they lived.

206. The Israeli representative again denied the accusations levelled at him concerning the inhuman treatment of
the civilian population under Israeli occupation. I have also
stated that I can cite a large number of cases. I shall be
satisfied with reading only one. The following is a statement given to Major Derek Cooper, a member of the British
Red Cross, who himself investigated this case. The place is
Khan, Younis. The date is 4 March 1968. The name of the
man is Tayssir Saad. The statement reads as follows:

“In November 1967 Israelis came to my house at Khan
Younis and accused me of being a member of the
Liberation movement. I was taken to the police station
and inquiry started and I denied the accusation. They
insisted on obtaining from me information I do not know
about the activity of the resistance, and so I was taken to
one of the rooms in the police station and an Israeli
soldier came to me, fettered me and started pulling out

13 Quoted in French by the speaker.
my ten fingernails, Thereafter, the officer asked me to
leave Khan Younis, but I refused because I have nine
children. I remained free until the afternoon of 3 March
1968, when an Israeli military vehicle carrying four
military men arrived and informed me that I had to leave
Khan Younis immediately, and I left it the same day and
arrived in Jordan on 3 March.”

“His ten fingernails have been pulled out; he has been
severely beaten all over his body with iron bars.”

This is signed “Major Derek Cooper, witness, member of
the British Red Cross”.

207. In view of the lateness of the hour I will not read
everything or refer to other, similar cases of inhuman
treatment. But the same Major Derek Cooper submitted a
report on 5 August 1968, from which I should like to read
the following:

“I beg to inform you that in the course of a
conversation with a senior official of the United States
Embassy in Amman about the causes of the evacuation of
the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, I explained to the
concerned that persecution and all forms of economic
pressure and intimidation were the chief causes of the
evacuation of the refugee and resident inhabitants of the
Gaza Strip. In fact I brought the evacuees whose names
appear below before the official concerned and asked him
to question them regarding these causes: Sayid Tewfiq
Mahmoud Abu Fakhr of Jebna, an inhabitant of the
Jabalia Camp; Sayid Ibrahim Khalil Taurmous of Majdal,
an inhabitant of the Rafah Camp; Sayid Amer Abdul
Rahim al Rautisi of Yabaa, an inhabitant of the Jabalia
Camp; Sayid Muhammad Rashid Matar of Majdal, an
inhabitant of the Seacoast Camp.

“When they were questioned, they replied that the
Israeli authorities, particularly the paratroops, were committing the following acts of savagery:

“1. After the occupation authorities had conducted a
strict census in every house in regard to present and
absent members of families and the reasons for their
absence in detail, the occupation forces marked houses
with a seal during the night and began to beat the father
of the family and the present male members and to ask
them about the absentees and whether they were commandos.

“2. Covering children below ten years of age with
earth and opening fire to intimidate them so that they
would guide the authorities to the place where arms were
being kept. If women intervened to ask the authorities to
cease beating their men and children, they, the occupation forces, threatened to take them to brothels in Israel
so that they will learn not to meddle in affairs which are
not their concern.

“3. Mukhtars in refugee camps were warned that they
should persuade the refugees to leave their houses and
work for the west bank or the Jericho area because the
town of Gaza and its neighbourhood were a military
zone. Moshe Dayan... was present at one of these

20

meetings. He spoke on the subject. When they said that
each of them was responsible only for his own family,
some of them were imprisoned and tortured,

“4, One of the methods of intimidation and torture
was the gathering of men and youths, dropping them into
a pond near the camp and keeping them in it for three
days.

“5, Demolition of houses by means of tanks.

“6. Theft of money, jewelry and valuables in the
course of the artificial search for arms.

“7. Giving refugees living in tents near the camp notice
to leave. When they rejected this, their tents were
destroyed by fire together with their contents,

“8. Arrest of young men for any unimportant reason,
transporting them to the King Hussein Bridge and
expelling them to the east bank without any clothes or
money and without giving them a chance to notify their
relatives.

“9, Employment of bribes to tempt the inhabitants to
leave the Strip for Jordan, where work of a quiet life were
to be had, in return for the payment of compensation as
follows: father of the family, £250 Israeli; wife, £150,
Each person whose name was included in the card £50.

“10. Employing refugees holding ration cards free of
wages, and in return for obtaining their ration given to
them by UNRWA.

“11. Arrival of Israeli policemen at coffee houses to
inspect and collect identity cards and the policemen’
return afterwards to ask for identity cards. When those
whose cards had been taken protested and say that the
police had taken their cards, they are taken to prisons on
a charge of being commandos.

“At the end of the conversation the official concerned
showed his displeasure as a result of this barbarous and
inhuman treatment. He asked what was the solution? 1
said: “The solution is that you should exert political and
economic pressure on the occupation authorities to
compel them to respect and implement the United
Nations resolutions’. I asked him to convey this information to his authorities and he promised to do $0.”

This was signed by Major Derek Cooper of the British Red
Cross, -

208. It is no wonder, therefore, that the humaitarian
resolution 237 (1967), in paragraph 1:

“Calls upon the Government of Israel to insure the
safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas
where military operations have taken place and to
facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled
the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities”.

That is completely forgotten by the Israeli representative,
who confines himself to reading operative paragraph 2 of
the resolution,
209. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of
Israel in exercise of the right of reply.

210. Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): I shall be very brief indeed. I
should like to quote from a report which appeared only a
few days ago, following a visit by a British citizen to the
areas under Israeli occupation. It is a report which appeared
in The Daily Telegraph of 19 September and which states
the following:

“Against this discouraging background remains the
problematical future of occupied areas, notably the west
bank of the River Jordan and the Gaza Strip.

“The occupation is one of the most extraordinary of
modern times because a population approaching half that
of Israel itself is being controlled by a handful of soldiers
and much local administration has remained in Arab
hands. ;

“There have inevitably been discontents and ugly
incidents, but on the whole this must be the most
unresisted occupation ever.”

211. I would like to add, as the representative of Syria
referred to a number of letters signed by representatives of
the Red Cross, that the Government of Israel received an
apology from the Red Cross with an explanation that those
letters had to be sent to the Syrian authorities in order to
permit the continuation of the humanitarian activities of
Red Cross representatives in Syria.

212. 1 can understand fully the sensitivity displayed by
the Syrian representative concerning his country’s record
on human rights, in particular with regard to Christian and
Kurdish communities. I should like to assure the Security
Council that the persecution of Christians and Kurds, in
addition to Jews, in Syria is a matter of record, reported in
numerous international documents. I should like to quote
briefly from two of them.

213. The Bulletin of the International Commission of
Jurists of September 1967 states on pages 40 and 41:

“Last May, the Secretary-General of the Committee for
the Defence of the Kurdish People’s Rights, in a letter to
the International Commission of Jurists, stated that the
Syrian Government had begun to carry out its ‘Arab Belt’
plan whereby thousands of Kurdish peasants, living on a
strip of land ten kilometres deep, adjacent to the Iraqi
and Turkish frontiers, are to be removed to desert land
and to be replaced by Arabs and Bedouins from elsewhere. In one region the government has already confiscated the land and crops of the villagers, who, refusing to
move, are suffering from starvation and disease. At
present, 150,000 to 160,000 Kurds are threatened by the
‘Arab Belt’ policy.

“Outside these areas, ... the Kurds are in no better
position. In one region, as a result of a new population
census, 150,000 Kurds have been deprived of their
nationality, are no longer considered to be persons before
the law, and cannot avail themselves of the social
amenities in Syria since their identity cards have been

21

unable to travel to
mit from the
impossible to

withdrawn. They are, moreover,
another region or village without a per
military government, which is almost
obtain.”

214. As for the rights of the Christians, I should lice tv
quote from a message from the Catholic Bishop © ; ya,
dated 11 November 1967, which states the following:

“We could not imagine that the Minister of Education
would impose this set of measures against our schools and
would turn a deaf ear to the voice of truth, liberty and
justice. Surely we could not imagine, and even today we
have difficulty in believing, that in the Syria of the
twentieth century events would transpire that successive
Governments of our homeland refrained from bringing
about at all other times.

“Today the right of parents to educate their children
according to the principles of their beliefs and their
religion has been violated. Today the freedom of the
Church has been outraged by barriers which prevent it
from carrying out its spiritual mission towards its sons.
Today justice has been denied by two sanctions of
extreme severity for a crime without foundation. Our
schools were broken into, their locks smashed; after that.
some were provisionally seized, others were closed and
had their licenses revoked; finally, and vitally important.
the most important among them were definitely confiscated. '

“Let public opinion and the conscience of all citizens
know then and understand that the Ministry of Education
has by this action struck a blow at the sanctity of Church
property and has expropriated without a valid cause and
without any right the properties and possessions of the
Church used for charity and good works.”

215. With regard to Syria's attitudes towards Israel, |
would not like to fatigue the Council with additional
quotations from statements of policy made by Syrian
leaders. Frequently the simple expressions found in such
documents as schoolbooks reflect more than anything else
the real attitude and the atmosphere existing in a particular
country. In the ninth elementary grade schoolbook on Arab
history used in Syrian schools we find the following
statement:

“Our path depends on never recognizing Israel, absolutely refusing to make peace with her, avoidance of all
direct or indirect contact with her and enforcing of the
economic boycott around her. Yet this will not suffice,
for we must raise a large army to destroy her.”

216. 1 do not think the Security Council really intends to
determine here this evening or at the next meeting that
human rights are a one-sided question.

217. Now, I know that the representative of the Soviet
Union expects me to respond to his statement, and 1 should
not like to disappoint him. On listening to him expound on
human rights, | was reminded of a well-known representative of a Middle Eastern country who, in a discussion in

the Assembly on freedom of information, stated: *1 can
speak objectively about freedom of the Press. We have no
newspapers in our land.”

218. The invitation [ had the honour to extend the other
day to dll the representatives around this table to come and
visit the territories under Israeli control applies, of course,
to the representative of the Soviet Union as well. In his
case, I should like to go even further: I should like to assure
him that we shall be ready to consider favourably all his
advice concerning the welfare of the civil populations in
territories under Israeli control if the human rights enjoyed
right now by the Arab inhabitants in Israeli-controlled areas
will be granted also to the Jews of the Soviet Union.

219. The PRESIDENT: I recognize the representative of
Syria to exercise his right of reply.

220. Mr. TOMEH (Syria): I can well understand the
extreme sensitivity shown by the Israeli representative in
his reply. In fact, in one part of my first statement | said:
Are we in the nineteenth century witnessing a colonial
conquest, or are we in the twentieth century? The fact is
that what we have just heard from the Israeli representative
is a statement typical of what a colonial representative or
an imperialist occupying a foreign land would have said.
During our life we have grown accustomed to seeing
occupying authorities trying to drive wedges between
various sections of the population. Having failed in his
effort to say something more about the Jews in Syria, the
Israeli representative has taken the liberty of making
himself a spokesman for the Kurds and for the Christians,
of which latter I myself, [ repeat, am one.

221. Now, with regard to the Kurds, all that the Israeli
representative has said is a fabrication of his own mind,
made up out of false reports and distortions that have no
value or foundation whatsoever.

222. As to the Christian schools in Syria, although this is
not the item on the agenda of the Security Council, what
the Syrian Government has proceeded to do is to unify the
programmes of education in all schools, not only in
Christian schools but in private schools, some of which are
Moslem as well. Therefore, the issue does not arise at all.

223. But the Israeli representative, as a representative of a
colonial Power, must be reminded of the spirit of hatred
with which the Israelis face the Arabs and look at the
Arabs. I have quoted Uri Avnery. In one part of his book he
describes how he joined the Irgun. The first question that
he was asked when he joined the Irgun was: “Do you hate
the Arabs? > He did not reply. That is the spirit of Israel.

224, If that is not enough, let me quote one very great
Israeli authority, well known in responsible circles of
thought in the world. I am referring to Martin Buber and to
his book Israel and the World!4 in which he has this to say
about the spirit of Israel:

“The most pernicious of all false teachings, that
according to which the way of history is determined by
power alone, insinuated itself everywhere into the thinking of the peoples and their Government, while faith in
the spirit was retained only as a mere phraseology.”

14 Schocken Books, Inc., New York, 1948.

22

What we heard from the representative of Israel was “a
mere phraseology”.

225. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of the
Soviet Union in right of reply.

226. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(translated from Russian): In exercise of my right of reply,
I wish to answer the customary slanderous attack by the
Isracli representative. I am used to it; he attempts to slander
the Soviet Union at every meeting, this seems to have
become his second profession.

227. 1 protest categorically against the Israeli represents.
tive’s attempt to use a Security Council meeting to make’
crude and slanderous attacks upon States Members of the
United Nations, to meddle in their domestic affairs and to
distort well-known facts concerning the position of Soviet
citizens of Jewish descent in the Soviet Union. I am bound
to reject with the utmost indignation the Israeli represen
tative’s routine slanderous attack upon the Soviet Union.

228. There are over 100 national groups in the Soviet
Union. They all live together as friends, as brothers. The
Soviet Constitution provides as follows:

“Equality of rights of citizens of the Soviet Union,
irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of
economic, government, cultural, political and other
public activity, is an indefeasible law.

“Any direct or indirect restriction of the privileges,
rights or conversely the establishment of any direct or
indirect privileges for citizens on account of their race or
nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national
exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, are punishable by
law.”

229. A striking example of the equality of all citizens of
the Soviet Union, regardless of origin, is provided by the
group of colleagues with me in the Council: one of them is
of Ukrainian descent, one of them of Jewish descent and
two of Russian descent. Here is a clear rebuttal of the
Israeli representative’s slander. That is all T have to say.

230." The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of
Israel in right of reply.

231. Mr. TEKOAH (Israel): I should like to express my
appreciation to the representative of the Soviet Union for
that clarification and in particular for the recital of the
Soviet Constitution. I should like to assure hin that after
having spent three years in the midst of the Jews of the
Soviet Union I know that all of them probably know that
particular paragraph by heart. They are still praying that it
will be translated into reality.
[]

232. The PRESIDENT: There are no further represen:
tatives inscribed on my list to speak before the vote. If n0
member of the Council wishes to take the floor at this
stage, I shall proceed to ask the Council to vote on the
revised joint draft resolution of Pakistan and Senegal
contained in document S/8825/Rev.2.
233. TI call on the representative of the United Kingdom
on a point of order.

234. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): On a point of
order, I should like to suggest for the consideration of my
colleagues in the Security Council that now that we have
finished our debate it might be well for us to postpone the
vote until, shall we say, Monday of next week.

235. Earlier in the day I had discussions with a number of
members of the Council. Certainly I speak only for myself,
but I gathered that there was a feeling among a number of
members that it would be well in this important matter—
where we must reflect on what has been said in the Council
and where we have to deal with a draft resolution which we
have seen in its final form only this morning—if we could
postpone the important vote we have to take until the
beginning of next week.

236. Speaking for my own delegation, I would say that
having very carefully considered the various formulations
which have been put before us, we were not content to be
critical only; we were anxious to be constructive. As
members know, we have put forward an alternative both to
the sponsors of the draft resolution and in the informal
discussions which we have had together. I have again
referred to it in the speech that I made earlier this evening.
Sponsors told me that proposals would be carefully
considered. I am sure they were genuine in saying so, We
have had no response to the suggestions we have put
forward. We have seen no readiness to discuss the alternative that we suggested. I had hoped that there might be a
readiness to discuss what we had proposed. But that is
another reason, perhaps, why a final decision might be
taken at the beginning of next week rather than tonight.

237. That is the suggestion, on a point of order, which I
was anxious to put before the Council.

238. The PRESIDENT: The representative of the United
Kingdom, speaking on a point of order, has just made a
suggestion, If there are no further comments, I should like
to ask the representative of the United Kingdom if he has a
formal motion to propose.

239. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): No, Sir, I did
not put forward my. suggestion in the form of a formal
motion. I put forward my suggestion for the consideration
of my brothers in the Council.

240. The PRESIDENT: Are there any comments on the
suggestion of the representative of the United Kingdom?

241. Mr, YUNUS (Pakistan): With regard to the suggestion
that has just been made to postpone the vote until early
next week, I should like to say a few words, and in doing so
I should like to look at the facts as they are.

242. The original draft of the Pakistan-Senegal draft
resolution was presented a whole week ago, on 20
September. Ever since then, constant discussion has taken
place informally among members of the Council, Secondly,
the revised draft resolution is dated, as can be seen from
document S/8825/Rev.2, of 26 September.

23

243. Looking at those two drafts, that is to say, the
original draft and the revised draft, one can see that there
are some changes which reflect a certain amount of effort
and the results of the informal discussions aimed at
reaching a text in accordance with those consultations.

244. Now, I should like to recall that yesterday afternoon
in an informal meeting, after we had arrived at this revised
text which is now before us, you specifically asked all
members, Mr. President, either to wait, themselves, or to
leave one of their representatives to receive the revised text
so that it might be possible to obtain instructions for this
afternoon’s meeting. All of us got, or should have got, the
text at that time. Twenty-four hours have passed since
then.

245. In any case, members have been discussing this
question; they have discussed it thoroughly; we have had
long consultations, and in the course of those consultations
all proposals, drafts, suggestions and amendments have, one
by one, been considered and either adopted as part of the
revised draft or, regretfully, rejected since adoption was not
possible. There was not a single suggestion which we did
not consider. All of us are now clear about the substantive
position held by each of the delegations around this table,

246. These facts clearly suggest that the vote on our draft
resolution should not be delayed any longer. Above all, the
issue here before us is humanitarian. We should not allow it
to be obfuscated by political considerations. Many
members, may [ point out, have repeatedly indicated during
our informal consultations the difficulties they are facing in
respect of the work of the General Assembly due to the
unnecessary prolongation of the consideration of this
question. We also know the difficulties involved in getting
this afternoon’s meeting itself convened. And yet, despite
the difficulties faced by individual members, we convened;
we convened to consider this draft, to take a decision on it,
after having done all that we could possibly do to improve
it. To us, a postponement of the vote at this stage does not
seem to have any justification.

247. The PRESIDENT: As the presiding officer of the
Council I, of course, have to try to apply the rules of
procedure and maintain impartiality. I am in the hands of
the Council. The suggestion has been made to postpone the
vote. Such a postponement, of course, could be decided
upon by common consent, and I would be guided by that
decision. If the desirability of a postponement is questioned—as it has been—by one of the co-sponsors of the
draft resolution, a member of the Council, we obviously
cannot proceed by common consent.

248. Are there any comments?

249. Mr, MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(translated from Russian): 1 have listened carefully to the
arguments adduced by the representative from Pakistan.
They correspond to the facts. Yesterday, during the
consultations held at an informal meeting of members of
the Security Council, the sponsors of the draft resolution
dictated, very slowly, each word of this draft. We all took
down the text, We all knew it; we had been discussing it for
more than a week, we had consulted together, There is very
little difference between the new text and the old. I
therefore consider that those representatives who have
taken a serious approach to this matter and who have
studied all these paragraphs with due attention have had
every opportunity for deciding what action to take with
tegard to the draft resolution.

250. In these circumstances, therefore, I see no justification for postponing the vote, particularly since the text was
dictated word for word yesterday, twenty-four hours ago.
There was an opportunity for co-ordination, had that been
needed, There is nothing new in this text except for the last
paragraph, which the sponsors agreed to accept, rather
reluctantly, and under considerable pressure. Hence the
USSR delegation sees no justification for a postponement
of the vote on this question, particularly since no proposal
has been put forward—only considerations. But there: are
considerations of one kind and considerations of another.
Consequently, taking into account the whole line of
argument adduced by one of the sponsors, I believe that the
Council could vote on the text today.

251. The PRESIDENT: There appear to be no further
comments, The situation as I see it is that, while no formal
motion is before us, we have heard certain comments on
the considerations put forward by the representative of the
United Kingdom. It seems to me that, unless the Council is
presented with a formal motion to postpone the vote, I
must proceed with our business and put the revised draft
resolution before us to the vote.

252. Since no formal motion for postponement has been
made, and since there seem to be no objections to what |
have just said, the Council will now proceed to vote on the
revised draft resolution submitted by the delegations of
Pakistan and Senegal and contained in document S/8825/
Rev.2, dated 26 September 1968.

A vote was taken by a show of hands.

In favour: Algeria, Brazil, China, Ethiopia, France,
Hungary, India, Pakistan, Paraguay, Senegal, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland.

Against: None.
Abstaining: Canada, Denmark, United States of America.

The draft resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none,
with 3 abstentions.1$

253. The PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General has asked
to speak after the vote and I call on him.

254. The SECRETARY-GENERAL: With regard to paragraph I of the resolution just adopted, I need only call to
the attention of the Council that, as indicated in my note
[5/8699], 1 have been ready for some time to designate a
Special Representative to undertake a second humanitarian
mission to the Middle East. The representative can be on his
way with minimum delay once there is assurance that he

15 See resolution 259 (1968).

24

will have the access and co-operation indispensable to the
fulfilment of his mission,

255. The PRESIDENT: A number of Council representatives have inscribed their names on the list to speak after
the vote. I shall now call on them.

256. Mr. DE ARAUJO CASTRO (Brazil); Allow me to
state very briefly the reasons which have prompted the
Brazilian delegation to vote in favour of the resolution,

257. As you will recall, resolution 237 (1967), inspired by
clearly humanitarian considerations and without any political motivations at all, originated from a joint effort on the
part of the delegations of Argentina, Ethiopia and Brazil, In
considering the resolution the Council has just adopted and
in voting for it, my delegation was faithful to that same
humanitarian concern. We deem it imperative that the
members of the Security Council should bear such circum.
stances in mind so that the present resolution will not be
construed as being directed against any State or any of the
parties involved in the Middle East dispute. We interpret it
as a measure to help the Secretary-General in his efforts to
bring about the implementation of resolution 237 (1967),
and that is why we have taken a favourable attitude
towards it.

258. When at the 1361st meeting of the Security Council,
held on 14 June 1967,, the Permanent Representative of
Argentina, Ambassador Ruda, introduced on behalf of the
delegations of Argentina, Ethiopia and Brazil the draft text
of that resolution, he stated very clearly the intentions of
the three sponsoring delegations:

“First of all, we are deeply concerned at the fate of the
civilian population whose persons and possessions are
suffering from the consequences of war. A minimum
standard of rights must be guaranteed to those who are
not taking any active part in hostilities. We believe that
these persons must be treated in a humane manner under
all circumstances, that their family and residence rights,
their religious convictions and practices and their habits
and customs must be protected and, above all, that they
must not be subject to any act of physical or moral
coercion.

“,..this appeal is addressed specifically to... Israel,
since in present circumstances it is that Government
which will be largely responsible for applying these
humanitarian principles.” [1361st meeting, paras. S
and 6.]

259. We have quoted rather extensively from Ambassador
Ruda’s presentation because we feel that his words have an
important bearing on some of the issues raised and on some
of the doubts that have arisen as regards the interpretation
of resolution 237 (1967). My words should not in any way
convey the meaning that Brazil is indifferent to the
situation of minorities which in certain countries may be
subject to restriction or vexation because of race, national:
ity or religious creed. We have a large number of Arabs and
Jews living in Brazil; they coexist in my country in a
peaceful way, and we would be happy to see them coexist
in other areas. Brazil lives and thrives on the assumption of
the peaceful collaboration of all races and nationalities, and
we know from experience that human beings have a
tendency to associate and to work together whenever
politics is not injected into the situation. It is our firm
conviction that the present resolution is in keeping with the
language and spirit of resolution 237 (1967) and that it
does not in any way detract from that resolution. In this
regard we fully share the views set forth today by the
representative of Ethiopia.

260. Although we did not hesitate to cast an affirmative
yote on the resolution the Council has just adopted which, I
repeat, we view as a reaffirmation of resolution 237 (1967)
and as a measure aimed at strengthening the hand of the
Secretary-General in his efforts on this matter, we sincerely
regret that many circumstances—it would be futile to dwell
on them now—prevented this Council from agreeing on a
text that could be unanimously endorsed. We would have
welcomed such unanimity and we would have been quite
prepared to support a broader ‘and more thorough formulation consistent with our points of view. Nevertheless, we
wish to state our fervent hope that this resolution will
further the aims of resolution 237 (1967), and we should
like to be comforted by the thought that we have
supported the efforts of the Secretary-General in dealing
with this important humanitarian question. This is a
humanitarian, not a polemical or punitive resolution. It
should therefore be complied with without hesitation.

261. Mr. LIU (China): In voting for the draft resolution
that has just been adopted, it is the understanding of my
delegation that that resolution is a follow-up of resolution
237(1967) for the purpose of enabling the Secretary-General again to dispatch a special representative on a
humanitarian mission. The present resolution, in our view,
will in no way detract from the terms of resolution
237 (1967) or prejudice the discretion of the Secretary-General in his efforts to bring about the implementation of
that resolution.

262. Mr. BORCH (Denmark): My delegation abstained
from voting on the draft resolution that has just been
adopted by this Council primarily because in certain
respects we are not convinced about the adequacy of the
approach applied in the resolution to the problems confronting us. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I do
however wish to underline right from the beginning that we
feel very strongly that the United Nations, in pursuance of
resolution 237 (1967) unanimously adopted by this
Council on 14 June 1967 and General Assembly resolution
2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967, should take an active interest
in the safety, welfare and security of the civil populations
affected by the hostilities in the summer of 1967.

263. The fundamental basis for the considerations of my
delegation in the matter before the Council has been the
note presented by the Secretary-General to the Security
Council on 31 July 1968 [S/8699]. From that note it is
obvious that the Secretary-General has done everything in
his power now, as in the past, to comply with the request
of the Security Council and the General Assembly to follow
the implementation of the two resolutions that I have
mentioned.

25

264. Taking as his starting point the simple fact that only
first-hand knowledge about the conditions of the populations in question would allow him to do that in an adequate
and conscientious manner, the Secretary-General in July
1967 sent out to the Middle East a Special Representative,
Nils Goran Gussing, on the basis of whose findings a report
was issued on 2 October 1967 [S/8158] which contained
much useful information on the safety, welfare and security
of the population in the areas under Israel control, on the
situation of displaced persons from areas under Israel.
control and the question of their return, on the treatment
of prisoners of war and on the question of the treatment of
minorities,

265. It was therefore highly regrettable when the
Secretary-General, at the beginning of this year, felt that in
pursuance of his efforts in accordance with Security
Council resolution 237 (1967) and General Assembly resolution 2252 (ES-V), he wished to send a Special Representative out again whose mission, as the Secretary General has
repeated time and again, should have the same scope and
terms of reference as that of Mr. Gussing, that conditions
were laid down and obstacles raised which so far have
prevented the carrying out of a second humanitarian
mission. We regret this since we believe it is the duty of
those concerned to co-operate fully and unconditionally
with the Secretary-General in the exercise of the duties of
his high office, especially in a case like this where the
Secretary-General, in a truly humanitarian spirit which we
welcome , has shown a considerable degree of flexibility and
has given to the resolutions in question what he himself has
called a broad humanitarian interpretation. In our opinion
there can be no doubt that those concerned, and here I
must also and not least mention the Government of Israel,
should have been more forthcoming in this matter.

266. However, as we have said over and over again during
the private consultations, we belive that the approach
adopted in the present text will hardly fulfil its purpose. In
our opinion, the Council should rather have expressed its
full support of the efforts undertaken by the Secretary-General with a view to the implementation of resolution
237 (1967), including the dispatch of a further Special
Representative within the scope and with terms of reference set forth in the report of the Secretary-General, and
should have called upon those concerned to co-operate
fully and unconditionally with the Secretary-General and
his Special Representative. That would have been consistent, in our view, with the efforts undertaken by the
Secretary-General, it would more appropriately have
acknowledged the validity of his efforts, and it would, in
our opinion, have stood a better chance of leading to
constructive steps to the benefit of the populations whose
interests are in the minds of the members of this Council
and of the Secretary-General.

267. My Government stands firmly on Security Council
resolution 237 (1967) and General Assembly resolution
2252 (ESV) and the interpretations given by the
Secretary-General in the exercise of his functions under
those resolutions. We hope and we cxpect that those
concerned, and not least the Government of Israel, will
co-operate with the Secretary-General on this basis, without
conditions and in such a manner that a new humanitarian
mission can be dispatched to the Middle East.
268. We fear, however, that the resolution now adopted
may not serve that purpose. We therefore abstained from
voting on it.

269. Mr. JARA RECALDE (Paraguay) (translated from
Spanish): At this stage of our deliberations, I shall
endeavour to be very brief.

270. My delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution
which has just been adopted. It did so for two main
reasons. The first was humanitarian. Our pritnary concern is
with the plight of the populations which, in one way or
another, are suffering the consequences of the grave
conflict. Secondly, it is a fundamental principle of my
Government and of my delegation that all resolutions of
the Security Council should be carried out to the letter. In
this particular case, I refer to resolution 237 (1967)
sponsored by two Latin American countries, Argentina and
Brazil and also by Ethiopia, which was unanimously
adopted at the 1361st meeting of the Council.

271. In the light of the principle to which I have just
referred, namely, that Council resolutions must be fully
implemented, my delegation is somewhat concerned at the
omission from the resolution we have just adopted, of the
first and second preambular paragraphs of resolution
237 (1967) and of the express recommendation in paragraph 2 of that resolution; which I shall take the liberty of
reading out:

“Recommends to the Governments concerned the
scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection
of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949”.

272. 1 wish to say, finally, that the Paraguayan delegation
considers that the Governments concerned should conform
their actions strictly and unequivocally to the provisions of
resolution 237 (1967) to which such emphatic reference is
made in the present resolution.

273. Mr. BUFFUM (United States of America): I should
like to explain very briefly the reasons why the United
States abstained from voting on the resolution which the
Council has just adopted.

274. First, let me say what our abstention does not mean.
It does.not mean that our concern at the humanitarian
plight of the civilian population in the area of the 1967
conflict has in the slightest decreased over the past year. We
continue to believe that the United Nations has a legitimate
interest in the treatment and the welfare of those who
suffered from the conflict, including particularly the large
number of Arab people living in the Israeli-occupied
territories. We expressed this concern by our affirmative
vote for resolution 237 (1967) on 14 June 1967, and the
United States continues to support an approach to this
issue on the basis of that resolution. In fact, we should have
been very pleased here tonight to vote affirmatively again
for a draft resolution which clearly provided for the
dispatch of a United Nations representative on the same
basis.

275. As every member around this table is aware, an
informal proposal was advanced to us yesterday during our
consultations and that particular proposal, in our judge.
ment, offered such a useful point of departure. I might
recall-since, I believe, it has not been mentioned on the
official record yet—that the proposal which we considered
in its operative paragraphs asked the Secretary-General
urgently to pursue his efforts including the’ dispatch of a
special representative, with a view to implementing resolution 237 (1967), and requested that the Special Representative be given all necessary assistance and be permitted to
carry out his task without conditions being imposed. My
delegation would have been prepared to support such a
text. But the sponsors, to our regret, did not find this text
acceptable. More than this, the sponsors, as I understood
them, in adhering to their original text with the modifica.
tions made during the deliberations, very clearly in the
draft resolution which they presented this evening, wished,
as far as they were concerned, to disassociate the Security
Council in this particular effort from the fate of the Jewish
minorities in the area of the conflict. Such a philosophy
was not acceptable to my delegation.

276. We believe that the mission of Mr. Gussing last year
properly embraced the fate of all those in the area of
conflict and we frankly saw no valid reason why the
Security Council should now suddenly appear, at least, to
abandon its concern for some of those affected by the war
while retaining its concern for others.

277. I hasten to add that we are well aware that a number
of delegations which voted for the text tonight do not give
it such a restrictive interpretation, and I do not wish to
quarrel either with their interpretations or with their
motives—not in the slightest. But, in our view, a text which
at least seemed designed to narrow the terms of reference
of the special representative or which, at the very least, was
most ambiguous on this, was not thus designed to achieve
practical results.

278. For all those reasons we were unable to support the
present text.

279. 1 should like to emphasize, however, that the United
States remains deeply concerned about the plight of those
who suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the
hostilities, and we believe that the United Nations should
pursue its humanitarian role.

280. In that regard I should like to point out that, aside
from the ambiguities of the present resolution in paragraphs
1 and 2, it does clearly envisage continued efforts to
implement resolution 237 (1967). Several representatives
have already spoken to that point.

281. Paragraph 3 of the text just adopted recommends
that the Secretary-General be afforded all co-operation in
his efforts to bring about the implementation of this
resolution. The scope of resolution 237 (1967), as applied
by the Secretary-General in dispatching a Special Representative, is a matter of official record and it is on this basis,
which produced practical results last year, that we believe

- even now further progress is most likely to be made.

26
282. In conclusion, I would say that, despite the unfortunate and divisive elements introduced by the adoption of
the present text, we should like to hope that a common
ground may yet be found that will permit the United
Nations to proceed again in a practical way to manifest our
very legitimate and our very real concern with the fate of
the people in the Middle East.

283, Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): We have been
in some difficulty in deciding how to vote on this
resolution. On the one hand, as we have made very clear,
we felt that the resolution was in a form unlikely to achieve
the purpose of facilitating the implementation of resolution
237 (1967). It was for that reason that we put forward
alternative proposals. We greatly regret that those alternative proposals were rejected.

284, On the other hand, the purposes of resolution
237(1967) and the dispatch of the Secretary-General’s
“representative to the Middle East are purposes which we
strongly support and have always supported. We have
argued for the implementation of the humanitarian resolution without conditions. We remain firmly of that opinion.

285, It is for that reason that, while we do not accept
certain sections of the resolution, we support in particular
the last operative paragraph. That paragraph sets out a
recommendation with which we wholeheartedly agree.

286. For those reasons we voted in favour of the
resolution,

287, The PRESIDENT: Speaking as the representative of
CANADA 1 should like to explain our vote on the
resolution.

288. As President of this Council I did my best to direct
the difficult and prolonged consultations with impartiality
and endeavoured to achieve a more generally acceptable
text. The difficulties which we encountered have been
revealed for everyone to see in the statements made both
before and after the vote. Now I should like to explain very
briefly the Canadian position on this item and why we
abstained from voting on the resolution before the Council.

289. Canada, as a member of the Security Council in
1967, voted in favour of resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June
1967. We also supported the related resolution 2252 (ES-V)
in the General Assembly, We share the deep and general
concern about the safety, welfare and security of the
inhabitants in the area of conflict in the Middle East. We
likewise support the efforts of the Secretary-General, who,
in carrying out his responsibilities under resolution
237 (1967), has been endeavouring to send another Special
Representative on humanitarian questions to the Middle
East. The main question before the Council has been the
basis on which such a mission should proceed. This is made
quite clear in paragraph 15 in the Secretary-General’s note
[8/8699] to which reference has been made. This has been
the matter of dispute between the parties and so far has
prevented the mission from being sent.

290. The Canadian delegation would have been entirely
willing to go along with the Secretary-General’s suggestion

27

in paragraph 16 of the same report that the projected
second mission should have “the same scope and terms of
reference as the first”.

291. The Canadian delegation would have also agreed with
the Secretary-General that the “broadest possible humanitarian interpretation” should be given to the terms of
reference of this mission, Unfortunately, the resolution
before us takes, in our view, an unnecessarily restrictive
view of the mission, particularly in operative paragraph 1,
and is, therefore, we believe, unlikely to achieve its primary
purpose, namely, the dispatch of another Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the Middle East.

292. The Canadian delegation, in this case as in the case of
other resolutions of the Security Council, is indeed concerned that resolutions should be carried out and therefore
should be drafted with that aim in view. It is because of this
that the Canadian delegation was obliged to abstain from
supporting the resolution,

293. 1 should add that I have noted the remark by the
Secretary-General this evening that he could have a representative on his way with a minimum of delay, once there is
assurance that he will have the access and the co-operation
indispensable to the fulfilment of his mission. That is, of
course, the important point we have had in mind throughout in considering the draft resolution and the various texts
which have been presented. We still have not lost heart that
the Secretary-General’s plea will be heeded.

294. Mr. BOYE (Senegal) (translated from French): At
our last meeting, I had the opportunity of expressing my
views. on the matter with which we are dealing today. After
the vote which has just taken place, my thanks and those of
the delegation of Pakistan go to you, Mr, President, for the
impartiality and skill with which you have conducted our
deliberations, both official and unofficial.

295. On behalf of the delegations of Pakistan and Senegal,
I also wish to thank all those, round this table, who from
the outset gave their complete support to the draft
resolution on which we have just voted. I further wish to
thank the delegations which were good enough to offer us
the suggestions which we incorporated in our text with a
view to securing the widest measure of agreement within
the Security Council.

296. In expressing my thanks, I would not wish to
overlook the delegations which sought to find a compromise by offering suggestions that we were unfortunately
unable to accept, solely because we were concerned to
avoid any confusion or misinterpretation in regard to the
provisions of a resolution, which would then have remained
a dead letter.

297. 1 would be remiss in my duty if I did not also thank
our distinguished Secretary-General, who drew the
Council's attention to the difficulties which he had encountered in connexion with the implementation of resolution
237 (1967). He thus enabled us to review the problem, to
study it thoroughly and to look for the possible causes of

those difficulties.

298. Tt was on the basis of the Secretary-General’s note of
31 July 1968 [ibid] that the delegations of Pakistan and
Senegal set out to find a solution to the deadlock in which
the Council found itself, I should like, for my part, simply
to quote paragraph 21 (b) of that report.

“Because of humanitarian considerations, and on the
basis of sound legal advice, I gave the broadest interpretation to the provisions of the resolutions in defining the
range and functioning of the Gussing mission”,

The report goes on to say (and I wish to stress this point):

“In this connexion, although it is not necessarily
conclusive, it is not without significance that the records
of the debates in the Security Council and the General
Assembly on the two relevant resolutions disclose no
reference to the possible inclusion of the Jewish commupities in the Arab States as a concern of the
resolutions. The records of the discussion preceding the
adoption of the Security Council resolution demonstrate
that it was concern for the inhabitants of the occupied
areas or ‘of the areas where military operations have
taken place’ that motivated that resolution,”

299. We have taken account of certain provisions of that
report and we hope that, after the adoption of the
resolution on which we have just voted, it will finally be
possible for resolution 237 (1967) to be effectively and
speedily implemented.

300, We are not against anyone; all we ask is that a
representative of the Secretary-General should go and
ascertain the position of those who are suffering, that is, of
the Palestinians living in the Arab territories under Israeli
military occupation. The representative appointed by the
Secretary-General will be able to act only on the basis of
the resolution which has just been adopted. It is clear that
he will be unable to find in this resolution any legal basis
for entering sovereign States which no longer administer the
areas currently occupied by Israel. If Israel does not wish to
receive a representative of the Secretary-General, it has only
to withdraw from the occupied territories. That is the key
issue. We firmly hope that no further obstacles will be
raised with a view to preventing an impartial inquiry into
the safety, welfare and securlty of the inhabitants of the
territories under Israeli military occupation,

301. Mr. YUNUS (Pakistan): The representative of Senegal has already spoken on behalf of his delegation and mine
regarding our joint draft, just adopted by the Council. I
speak merely to make two points, very briefly,

302. First, I explained the position of my delegation
regarding the implementation of resolution 237 (1967) at
the 1453rd meeting on 20 September, We believe that the
Council adopted that resolution out of concern for the
safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of Arab
territories which had come under the temporary military
occupation of Israel. That position remains unchanged, It
provided the basis for the draft resolution which we had the
honour of submitting to the Council, together with Senegal.

303. Secondly, the amendments accepted by us to the
original draft do not, in our opinion, represent a change or
modification in the basic concept of that resolution.

28

304. The PRESIDENT: I give the floor to the representative of the United Arab Republic.

305. Mr. EL KONY (United Arab Republic): The Security
Council has been convened because one of its resolutions
has been consistently flouted by Israel. The Council has
acted today, with its usual wisdom, to indicate clearly to
the Israeli authorities that its resolution 237 (1967) should
be complied with immediately and that the Council will not
tolerate any more delaying tactics. By its action today the
Security Council is indicating without any ambiguity that
the responsibility for co-operating with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General lies specifically with the
Isracli authorities. The Council is informing Israel that no
conditions will be accepted with regard to the fulfilment of
the Special Representative’s mission.

306. The representative of the Secretary-General should
be despatched immediately to the occupied Arab areas and
all facilities should be accorded him to enable him to fulfil
his mission efficiently and in a short time. All guarantees
are to be ensured so that the inhabitants will have full
access to the Special Representative and so that he will be
free in his movements and will not be shadowed by agents
of occupying authorities. The Council, I am confident,
expects the Israeli authorities to extend full co-operation to
the Special Representative.

307. This is our understanding of the resolution that has
just been adopted and of its provisions,

308. Itisto be deeply regretted that the delegations of the
United States, Denmark and Canada have abstained from
voting for a mere humane resolution. This is a grave
responsibility which the world will never forget. The
responsibility of a Government like that of Denmark is all
the graver because the Danish people suffered during the
Nazi domination. As to the United States Government, we
are used to its unfriendly policy against the Arab peoples.
Nevertheless, we could not believe that they would go so
far as to encourage Israel to persist in and even increase its
criminal policy against a part of the Arab people.

309. The PRESIDENT: I have no further speakers on the
list. However, I see that the representative of Syria wishes
to speak. I shall recognize him. I do beg representatives not
to reopen the debate now that the vote on the resolution
has been taken. It is usual to have explanations of vote; it is
not usual to reopen discussion on resolutions that have
been voted on.

310. Since 1 have already made one exception, I shall
make another.’] do ask representatives to consider the
lateness of the hour,

311. Mr. TOMEH (Syria): I merely want to associate my
delegation fully with the statement just made by the
representative of the United Arab Republic.

312, The PRESIDENT: There being no other speakers at
this time, I propose to adjourn the meeting. Before doing
so, I should like to remind members of the Council that a
private meeting has been scheduled for 11 o’clock Monday
morning, 30 September, to consider the draft report of the
«

Security Council to the General Assembly. The meeting
should not take long. I would ask members to come
promptly in order that the Council may conclude the
business as quickly as possible.

29

313. The Council having concluded its consideration of
the question before it, I declare the meeting adjourned.

The meeting rose at 8.45 p.m.
HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS

United Nations publications may be oblained from bookstores 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.

KAK NOMYYUTb U3AAHWA OPTAHU3AUMKN OBBEANHEHHBIX HALUM

Hazan Oprannsannn 06negmuenunx Hanmi Moto KYUHT B KHIKINX Marasniax un
arcieeTsax 10 neex paftenax supa, Hanognre enpankm 00 H3AaHIAX B BALIN KITUKHOM
varaanne nan uwmre no agpeey: Opraumaanus Odsegmnemnmy Hanuit. Cexuun uo
upo game nayannii, Weto-Tlopt nin HKeuesa,

COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS

Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estén en venla en librerias y cosas distribvidoras
en todas parles del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Seccién de
Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra,

Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1.50 (or equivalent in other currencies) 35021 —November 1972-2,0§0

Voting Summary
Yes: 012 | No: | Abstentions: 003 | Non-Voting: | Total voting membership:
Y ALGERIA
Y BRAZIL
A CANADA
Y CHINA
A DENMARK
Y ETHIOPIA
Y FRANCE
Y HUNGARY
Y INDIA
Y PAKISTAN
Y PARAGUAY
Y SENEGAL
Y USSR
Y UNITED KINGDOM
A UNITED STATES