58. We assemble again, but at the dawn of a second decade with a promise of hope and a chance for peace. The past ten years were pregnant with thrilling events. Born in the aftermath of a disastrous war, this Organization has been fighting a battle of life and death. The issue was one of survival, an issue that goes down to the roots, to the very foundations of our existence. Nor are we yet at an end of our troubles, for the battle is still raging. At times this "Parliament of Man” seems to be trembling under its heavy load of tensions. At times, under the onslaught of the avalanche of insecurity, it seems almost to have reached the brink of collapse. At times this organization seems almost to destroy the Organization. 59. But the rock of salvation was always there. A great power was emerging — greater than all. The ordinary man in every corner of the globe is rising to power. He is becoming our final tribunal. To him we appeal and before him we plead. From this rostrum we often invoke his sense of justice — natural justice that reposes in the human soul. Public opinion is becoming our holy ghost whom we seek to satisfy. In this Assembly, when we take the floor, when we speak, when we vote, when we rise to a point of order, we always have in mind, we always think of public opinion. We feel as though public opinion is speaking to us, even loudly speaking to us. Even when it is silent we hear the voice of public opinion. But some of us lend our minds and conscience, others are indifferent or resistant. We shall not, however, despair; we shall not lose faith. World public opinion is still in the making. It is growing far, wide and deep. People all over the world — the masses, are forcing their control, their grip over international affairs. The Press, the radio and all the media of knowledge and information are daily invading new hearts, invading new lands. It is true, today the Charter may be violated; it is equally true that freedom today may be resisted; liberty may be denied and human rights may be ignored. But soon, much sooner than we expect, much sooner than we calculate, we will be captured by public opinion. We will be captured by the people's love for justice, by the people's love for democracy, for equality; and it is bound finally to capture this Organization. The Charter then will reign supreme, with honour and dignity. 60. At the outset we are duty-bound to make certain confessions of fact. Facts are facts and should not be suppressed or distorted. We must admit that we meet in this session in a favourable atmosphere, not entirely at ease, but not seriously disturbed. International peace and security are not fully at peace and security, but, admittedly, world tension is undoubtedly on the declining graph. In general, the atmosphere is no more satured with bitterness and recriminations. The Geneva Conference of the Heads of Government of the four great Powers, which has witnessed international talks on the highest level, is an historical event to be recorded with joy. Exchange of visits between leaders of States in America, in Europe, in Asia and Africa — all these visits prepare for a better life and for better understanding. President Eisenhower’s proposal [470th meeting] for the peaceful use of atomic energy is gaining ground day by day. The Soviet scheme for military reductions and for the evacuation of foreign bases is a great challenge to those who wish to follow. 61. Germany, a great country with a people of genius, injured by the Nazi regime, injured by Zionist propaganda, the like of which you heard from the statements of the previous speaker — that country must be unified, must take its seat with us, must take its seat in the family of nations. In this state of affairs we should not hesitate to rejoice, for the world has been sick with international tension. The Second World War has ended, only to prepare the battlefield for a global war, this time a war between the Allies themselves, between those who have been comrades in arms. 62. It is no secret. The Allies have been split into two camps. After the Second World War the world found itself torn between two major blocs. The division has embraced every international aspect. Dissension has dominated everything and spared nothing. Our Organization, the last asylum of hope and faith, has acted invariably —- and I say this without fear of contradiction— with the mobilized majority on one side, with the stubborn minority on the other side, and with a deserted Charter. Even in this Assembly, small States — out of need for economic aid, out of hunger for arms and military equipment — have lost the freedom of their countries, in part or in whole. Even in this Assembly and under the cognizance of the world, many small States have waived their rights to think freely in this Assembly, freely to act in this Assembly, and even freely to vote. This is not a sweeping statement. On many occasions, the principles of the Charter were betrayed. 63. 31. Let us take the principle of self-determination, the cornerstone of our Charter. When the issue is between colonial and non-colonial Powers, the principle of self-determination falls into abeyance. Again, when an item belongs to the people of Asia and Africa, self-determination can hardly find room in any resolution — even as a modest paragraph in a modest preamble in a modest resolution. We recollect with deep regret that in the last session the General Assembly voted down a specific paragraph in a specific resolution. By coincidence, that paragraph which was voted down happened to be a section of the Charter itself. So the Assembly has voted against a specific provision of the Charter, and it seemed as though the Assembly on that occasion was ready to vote against the whole Charter, should the Charter be tabled in the fashion and form of a resolution before the Assembly. 64. The question may be asked, why go so far? The answer is too simple to state. In general, with the exception of a handful of independents we come here as blocs, we assemble as blocs, and as blocs we disperse. We vote as blocs, and as blocs we abstain. This is where the danger lies; this is where the mine is laid. We must call for a halt. Our motto must be “no more blocs within the United Nations”. It is on merits, not as blocs, that we should think, judge and act. It is on the facts, not as blocs, that we should either vote or abstain. 65. In the United Nations the small and medium-sized States happen to constitute the majority, and the overwhelming majority, of the Assembly. But, unfortunately, this majority does not command, does not control, does not possess the majority. If, however, we can tear ourselves from the fabric of blocs, from the net of camps, with a will to support the Charter, we can save the peace of the world. Surely we can save our civilization and our very existence. Needless to state, the great Powers cannot wage a war in the planets or in the stars, The battlefield is necessarily on this earth of ours. This earth is mostly ours, mostly belongs to us, small and medium-sized States. Under our feet rest war fuel and war materials. In our lands lie airfields, military bases, lines of communication and all the means serviceable to the industry of war. It is only natural that with us, if we will, rests the decision for war or peace; and the choice is between coexistence or no existence. 66. Let us not forget, however, that the handful of independent States is no longer a handful. A new phenomenon is emerging. A number of States do come to the United Nations with a free mind and independent judgement. Particular mention may be made of the African-Asian States, or, if you wish, many of the Latin American States. We are not a third bloc, nor do we wish to be. We are an expression of independent j thinking. We approach international problems on their merits, and on their merits only. As a matter of fact, in Africa and Asia we differ in creeds, cultures and races. But our common ground has always been peace through freedom. We come to the United Nations with our wounds still fresh. We are awakening — we are rising in moral and material strength. With us we bring our memory of struggle as a ceaseless reminder to preach justice, practice justice and abide by justice. 67. But this is not all. The African-Asian group has not kept idle with arms folded. In the past the message of peace arose from the East, and it is the duty of the East to resume its transmission. This was our source of inspiration in our deliberations at Bandung. That Conference was more than a historic event. It marks a historical era — genuine and innocent. I say “genuine and innocent” with full meaning because we have no ulterior motives. We did not meet as satellites. We met as free and independent states; All manifestations of colonialism were condemned. Imperialism, its technique and its designs, were mercilessly outlawed. The Asian-African Conference at Bandung voiced the wishes of the people; and to the satisfaction of those wishes we are dedicated. At Bandung we met, large and small, weak and strong, of- various colours and of various creeds. We used various languages but we all spoke one: the language of freedom. 68. We understood each other readily, and we decided unanimously. The whole Conference was a success. It was a successful experiment in support of peaceful coexistence, an existence born in full legitimacy. And the Bandung Conference lost its Asian-African identity only to become a world force finding its expression, as we all know, as is rightly admitted, in the Geneva Conference. 69. There is scarcely a novel item of international character on our agenda this year. In spite of their gravity, many of the problems are as old as the Organization itself. They figure on our agenda in every session, together with a bundle of reports for our examination, to be remitted again for further examination. We witness again and again the vicious circle of shifting them from one Committee to another Committee and from one session to another session. 70. The question of disarmament, however, is one of deep concern to the civilized community. Various schemes have been suggested, only to add to our files already swollen with reports. The problem, however, is dual in character, involving both disarmament and rearmament, which need to be solved simultaneously to strengthen peace and maintain stability. With a few States the problem is one of highly excessive armaments; with the other States,, with the majority, the problem is one of under-armament. It is again the same old story of areas of a highly developed character and areas of an undeveloped character. 71. Human nature being what it is, military strength is one of the determining factors in guarding our independence, sovereignty, liberty, and all the dear treasures of our human existence. Excessive armament is a threat to the peace, but it is equally true that under-armament is an invitation to aggression. Under-armament is not by itself a vice, a peril or a danger. Under-armament is an invitation to aggression inasmuch as it creates weakness and a vacuum which invites, excites and incites aggression. 72. We in the Arab world suffer from what we call an armaments. starvation, an armaments hunger, like many other small and middle-sired States, In spite of the observations made by the representative of Israel from the rostrum of the General Assembly regarding the policies of the Arab world for armaments to defend their sovereignty, their territory and their people in order to avoid an episode, a tragedy of another problem of refugees in their territory, or to aggravate the situation in Palestine as it is, it is the sacred duty of every people, of every nation, to defend their territory and to take whatever means are necessary in order to make that defence satisfactory. 73. Generally speaking, States are either in a category of “haves” or “have-nots”. Should we be blamed if by coincidence, if you please, the Arab world falls under the category of the “have-nots”? It is not a shame to admit that we are within the category of the “have-nots” but it is certainly a shame that we should not defend ourselves. It is certainly dishonouring and degrading to our rights, to our duties and to our people that we should continue in that vacuum of insecurity, and that we should continue to fall within the category of the “have-nots”. This imbalance of strength creates insecurity, since the people are divided not only into two political camps, but also into two camps, that of the great “haves” armed to the teeth, armed also with die weapon of attack, nuclear energy, ready to explode; and the other camp of the small and middle-sized States, the “have-nots”, depending upon others to receive crumbs- of armaments and equipment to satisfy partly or wholly their starvation and hunger, their underarmament. 74. Self-defence is not only a right but it is a duty, and a sacred duty too. It is our sovereign right, a right enshrined by the Charter, and as such we accept no intervention, and no observation, either in the General Assembly or outside of the General Assembly. It is our right, and our sacred right too. It is our duty, and we shall always be ready to discharge our duty without any intervention. We accept no observation, from whatever quarter it comes, whether it is from the East, whether it is from the West, or whether it is from the gentleman who preceded me in addressing the Assembly. 75. Our defence is our own. How we should set up our system of defence, how we obtain the necessary means, materials and equipment and what-not for our defence, what agreements we accept, what agreements we reject, with whom we agree, with whom we disagree, is our own business. This is our own affair and we are the masters of our own affairs. I think that it must be made clear, once and for all, that the question of the defence of the Arab world and the Middle East is the concern primarily of the Arab world itself, of the people themselves, and we reject every intervention. We accept no observation. We are the sovereign on the land and we shall always maintain our right of sovereignty regarding our defence. 76. Analysed from another angle, we all know that this question of armaments, however, is leading to indue pressure and often to loss of sovereignty. We Should not deny that; it is a fact. To defend its territory and people, a State frequently submits in transactions of amis to terms impeaching, impairing and endangering its sovereignty. Thus the outcome is quite clear. A State loses the very objective which it seeks to defend. It again becomes enslaved. This is where a great danger lies, a danger not restricted to the States concerned, but to international relations at large. The remedy, however, is not far to seek nor difficult to find. Coupled with disarmament, we have to emancipate transactions of armaments from stipulations or restrictions of any political character. Give it or withhold it. 77. There should be no political restrictions impairing our freedom of action. It is either given or withheld. We cannot have again in this world an arms slavery, a slavery based upon a policy of armaments. Arms slavery must be abolished. There is no sense in declaring the principle of sovereignty in the Charter, when sovereignty itself is the price where with arms starvation is sought to be satisfied. If this emancipation with respect to armaments cannot be effected for one reason or another, we will have to seek an international plan to be carried out under the umbrella of the United Nations. This plan may be based on the same pattern as set for cultural, economic and monetary assistance now administered under international control. An arms fund or bank established in this manner would be fed by the “haves” in favour of the “have-nots”. The idea rests on an international pool of arms and military equipment aiming at a just, equitable and balanced redistribution of arms in the world. In brief, the system would be one of an armaments communism, so to speak belonging to the whole community and under the auspices of the international community. 78. At present, we live in a world of unbalanced strength. A few are armed to the teeth; many others are hundreds of years behind. Thus we need to build up a world of balanced strength. Such a balance would, in turn, build up a strong United Nations, balanced and solid as a pyramid. 79. Likewise, nuclear knowledge and technology must be widely disseminated to the four comers of the globe. Here, again, human progress in this field is halted by many vacuums and air pockets. In the family of nations, few and only few are hundreds of years ahead. The range is multiplied without proportion. With ordinary means, through the gentle process of evolution, it is difficult to cover the ground or to bring the range closer. To catch up, under-developed areas must follow" a revolutionary course. Happily, this revolution can be accomplished peacefully and without bloodshed through the peaceful development of atomic energy. The United Nations, through an international organ, will be called upon to establish seminars and research institutes on a regional basis to circulate nuclear knowledge and technology throughout the world. This again will help to revolutionize human progress and prosperity without bloodshed and sacrifice. 80. Let me deal for a moment with the problem of United Nations membership. We have strong feelings in favour of universality. We believe that all applications so far filed should be entertained. We cannot claim to be a world organization with a large number of States outside the Organization. The hair-splitting forensic examination about the prerequisites of membership does not further the cause of peace. Let us face the fact with courage and frankness that the States which are out of the Organization are fashioned out of the same fibre as those that are in. In and out, we have merits and demerits. No one can seriously claim that we are the Republic of Plato. Our past record has shown. that sometimes we are peace-wishing, sometimes not peace- loving. Faults we have committed, and of faults we complain. The challenge, however, is decisive. He who is without fault, let him stone those sinners waiting at our door. 81. Speaking from a regional angle, we strongly endorse the applications of Jordan and Libya, We whole-heartedly welcome the two sister States, as well as the remaining applicants. We trust that the time will not be far off when four other Arab countries will join this Organization. Palestine, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, after emancipation and independence, will, we trust, join this Organization. It is only a matter of time and freedom will emerge victorious. By that time, twelve Arab States in this Organization will be ready to make an immeasurable contribution to the cause of peace and prosperity in the world and to play their role. 82. There remains the question of the revision of the Charter. At this stage, we take no definite attitude. Our mind is open to any valid argument advanced. However, it does seem that the revision of the Charter is unwarranted. The Charter is not to blame. The burden lies upon our shoulders, upon ourselves, and the poor Charter is quite innocent. It is not guilty. If there is any guilt, it must be placed at the door of this Organization. The Charter is not responsible. On the contrary, the Charter is supreme and superb. As an international instrument, it is a masterpiece. And, after all, it is the implementation of the Charter that counts. It is what we practise and not what we preach that ultimately matters. An ounce of honest action is worth a large number of Charters devoid of implementation. After all, the principles of the Charter are as old as Plato, if not older. But it was Socrates alone who drank the hemlock. Our present Charter is not an isolated invention which was miraculously found in the streets of San Francisco. The editing, the style and the language are truly ours; but the ideas and the ideals are the great legacy of the human race, the accumulation of the free thinking of the world throughout all the generations. When we want to consult the Charter, we simply have to look for it in our hearts and not in our pockets. It is there that we can read the Charter and it is there that we can understand it. 83. In dealing with peace and security we cannot overlook the disturbed conditions now prevailing in North Africa. In that region human suffering is mounting beyond every thinkable limit. The situation is most distressing and disturbing. In Algeria a genuine war is being waged. In Morocco bloodshed is becoming the rule of the day. Massacre, decimation and various acts of repression are becoming daily occurrences in the life of the community. The issue, however, is crystal clear. The struggle is between the people and a colonial rule. Allegations have been made that certain States are inciting the people to revolt, or, that such and such a broadcasting station is inciting the people to revolt through statements and declarations. This is nothing but ridiculous. The movement is one for liberation, it is a fight to achieve sovereignty and independence. It is a movement endeavouring to realize the principles of the Charter. Many of the States represented here in this Assembly have fought on the same battlefield, and in the wars of independence many were condemned as rebels and bandits. Finally, however, the rebels have captured their seats in this Organization and it is actually true to say that many of those seated here today are, so to speak, the successors to rebels and bandits — they are now the worthy accredited servants of sovereign States, free and independent. 84. Invariably the outcome was ultimate victory, and in the case of North Africa the same destiny is bound to come to pass. France, with all due respect, will walk out of North Africa and the people will be liberated, will become free, independent and sovereign. With this fate in mind, with this destiny already visible, why pay the high toll which is now being paid in terms of lives, suffering, distress and discomfort? Why this bloodshed and the misery on such a scale and in such a degree? Why not listen to the wisdom coming from the Far East, from Indo-China? In the Far East, France, and only France, can assess the suffering, her loss and her injury. 85. The people of North Africa, however, do not stand alone. Peace-loving nations will not fail to extend their, support and sympathy. Maybe, and this is one of the merits of France, maybe many Lafayettes are now on the scene, crossing the Mediterranean to support the cause of freedom as many Frenchmen have done in the past. Maybe history repeats itself. 86. It is with great regret that I speak on this question in the absence of France — it is with great regret and deep concern that France is not among us in this gathering, because we do not want to discuss this problem in the absence of France. This problem must be considered fully. After all, the views of those concerned are being explained and placed before the General Assembly and before the world at large — let the world know whether this is a case of internal or domestic jurisdiction or otherwise. Let the world know whether this is a case of colonialism or otherwise, whether this is a case intended to offend France or to uphold the spirit and the principles of the Charter in favour of freedom and liberty. I appeal to France not to take the vote that was cast on Friday [530th meeting], or the recommendation of this General Assembly, as being offensive to France. There was no intention to offend France. At no moment did we have in our minds the desire to offend France or to decry her. France should not take this vote as a defeat for France, but as a victory for the French Revolution, for it is in that revolution that we see France, in it she gave the world the principles of liberty, freedom and independence, and it is from that angle that we wish to view the question and it is from that angle that we should like freely to discuss it. 87. Last, but first and foremost, comes the question of Palestine. There is no doubt that it is first and foremost, for it discloses a tragedy with no equal or parallel in the annals of history. This is not a frontier dispute that could be settled one way or another. This is not a clash of ideologies or creeds that could be settled one way or the other. This is not a conflict between civilizations or races that could be guided in its peaceful settlement by give and take. The problem is much deeper and much graver. 88. The issue refers to a whole people, not a fraction of a people, but a whole people in their entirely, in their right to liberty, their right to freedom, their right to property, their right to live in their homeland, their right to die in their homeland, the rights which you and I exercise. The question refers to the rights of a whole people and to the whole set of human rights. This is not a violation of a right of election, of worship, of freedom of speech or freedom of conscience, it is a question of the whole of their rights to everything—the right to live, to elect, to worship in their homeland, the very right to have a home. It is this sacred human right to have a home and to live at peace in their homeland, given to them by their fathers and grandfathers since immemorial times. This is not a matter of the demarcation of boundaries or of honest disagreements or of interpretations of the Charter. It is a question of a whole people uprooted from their homeland and living in exile for eight years with all the distress and conflict entailed. Leaving aside responsibilities and brushing aside the reasons; causes and effects, it is quite clear that here we have a people uprooted from their land and clamouring every year to the General Assembly, through the report of the United Nations observers, for repatriation. The people want to live in their own homeland. 89. What conciliation could be applied to such a problem, what mediation? Either let these people live in their homeland or let them die in exile, and the choice has been taken by Israel to let these people die in exile. 90. We of the Arab world contend, and I believe rightly so, that Palestine is the homeland of its legitimate citizens, whether they be Moslems, Christians or Jews. It is the homeland of each of those people. Those people happen to be by historical making, not by historical coincidence, Moslems, Christians and Jews, who have lived for generations throughout history in amity and friendship. We claim that Palestine is the homeland of those people, without any discrimination and without any distinction in law or in fact between a Jewish citizen, a Moslem citizen and a Christian citizen. 91. As everyone well knows, Palestine is the Holy Land of those three religions of the world, whereby the citizens, Christian, Moslem and Jewish, are the guardians of the holy shrines. They are the guardians of all the Holy Places, places which are holy to those three religions of the world. This is our contention pure and simple. 92. What is the contention of Zionism? That contention is also quite simple. Although Mr. Eban did not give us the definition of Zionism, it is well known. Palestine to Zionism means the homeland of every Jew in the world, whether he is American, British, French, Scots, Canadian, or anything else. He might be one of the representatives here in the General Assembly just for the simple reason that he is a Jew. This is not our contention. We say that Palestine is the homeland of its people; they say that it is the homeland of every Jew. The bulk of citizenship seems to be outside Israel; this is a state established not on its soil and not by the people of the land. It is a State the bulk of whose citizens are living abroad in every corner of the globe—people who must owe their allegiance to the flag of Israel and not to the flag of the United States or to the flag of France. Every Jew, according to Zionism and according to Israel, must believe that Israel’s flag is his. This is the difference between what we claim and what Mr. Eban’s Israel is. 93. Mr. Eban had the courage to come to the rostrum of the General Assembly to speak about the States of the Arab world, to level criticism against the Arab world and the State of Egypt. I am not here to defend Egypt or any other Arab State. But, Mr. Eban, come here.to the rostrum and tell us frankly which State has driven the people from their homeland, which State has seized the property of the people, which State has for eight years been resisting the repatriation of refugees? 94. Has any State been known, even in the barbaric ages, to resist the repatriation of the people? We all know of wars, we all know of aggressions, we all know of invasions, but we have never known of an invasion which uprooted the people of the land or denied to the people their right to live peacefully in their homeland. 95. Mr. Eban spoke about conciliation, about mediation, about peace and what not. It is quite easy for one to speak about peace and still to interfere in our affairs, interfere in our policies of rearmament — to interfere with an evil eye on our oil resources and on our lands. Is all this not evidence of a motive of expansion and aggression against the oil lands and other vast areas of the Arab world? 96. It is quite easy for Mr. Eban to make any kind of statement. He spoke about conciliation and about a conciliatory spirit. You all know that there was a Conciliation Commission appointed by you in order to arrive at a peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. What did the Palestine Conciliation Commission report in its progress reports? In all the reports submitted to the General Assembly it stated that the main obstacle was that Israel did not wish to repatriate the people to their homelands. The Palestine Conciliation Commission was entrusted with settling the territorial question, the question of the status of Jerusalem, and the question of the repatriation of the refugees. All the reports of the Conciliation Commission to the General Assembly have stated that Israel resists repatriation, Israel resists internationalization and Israel resists any discussion of the territorial question. What, Mr. Eban, remains for conciliation? 97. Mr. Eban spoke of mediation. I do not want to embitter the atmosphere of the Assembly, but what were the results in connexion with mediation? What happened to the United Nations mediator? Under whose flag and under whose authority was the United Nations mediator massacred, and mercilessly massacred? How can one have successful mediation when the mediator is massacred on the soil of the other party? Still it is quite easy for one to speak of mediation. I do not want to say that Jewish terrorists massacred the mediator. I do not want to bring that up. But it is quite well known and it is common knowledge that it was not at Arab hands that the mediator was massacred. 98. After frustrating conciliation and after the mediator was murdered, the Israelis still have enough courage to come here before the General Assembly to speak of mediation and conciliation. 99. These facts are alarming and I did not want to mention them. However, I could not sit by idly or silently listening to the bold allegations which were made — I would say, with all due respect, of the preposterous allegations which were put forward by Mr. Eban against the Arab States, and particularly against the great and leading State of the Arab world, Egypt. 100. Such threats are full of warning; such a situation is pregnant with danger. We have here a people robbed of their homeland, of their liberty and of their property. We have here a people who have been denied all the human rights in their entirety and who are living on the charity of the international community. These people who have homes, lands, farms, funds, revenues — everything which they possess in their country — and they must live for the eighth year on the charity of die international community. Just imagine the amount of peace which this situation harbours. 101. So far the people of Palestine have not taken the law into their own hands. But who can rest assured that they will continue to be law-abiding? The leading of an underground movement cannot be ruled out by them. The people of Palestine might at any time carry out a campaign to emancipate their country in order to enjoy their property, to Jive in their homeland, to return to their homes, to their farms, to the graveyards of their fathers or their grandfathers, to exercise the right which every human being in this world is exercising, whether he comes from a free people or from an enslaved people. 102. Today the people of Palestine may still have faith and patience. They may possess nothing except courage and determination. But no one knows what tomorrow will bring. Tomorrow may bring everything. It may bring all that a people need to defend their national existence, all that they require to repel an aggression on their homeland. 103. In the course of this struggle, the people of Palestine will not be alone nor will they be let down. There is no doubt that all freedom-loving peoples all over the world will rally to their support. 104. Yet the United Nations has a role to play and a duty to discharge. Mr. Eban has referred to the nonparticipation of Israel in the Bandung Conference. He is entitled to inquire. The point is crystal clear. Israel did not participate because Israel was not invited, and Israel was not invited because Israel does not belong to the soil of Asia and Africa. 105. Zionism by definition, as we know it, is the penetration of the West; it is a symbol of imperialism. As such, there is no room for Israel in Asia or in Africa, or in any conference held by Asia or Africa. Jews, as legitimate citizens of the Arab world, are entitled to live prosperously and freely in their homes in the Arab world. They would be welcome, but Israel has no room as a State with Zionism behind it, with the ideas of expansion and aggression, the events of which are being evidenced every day by the reports of the United Nations observers. Such a State has no place in the Middle East. 106. Yet the United Nations has a role to play and a duty to discharge. I do not propose to deal with the rights and wrongs. I do not wish to weary you with a long list of flagrant violations committed in the area day and night. Likewise, I do not intend to outline the various resolutions passed by the General Assembly on the question of Palestine. I do not wish to enlist those resolutions, and particularly that resolution which gave birth to Israel. We all know that Israel was created on the strength of a resolution, and on the strength of a resolution it was admitted to its seat in the General Assembly. That State, which was created and admitted by a resolution, finds the courage here in the United Nations to rebel against all the resolutions of the General Assembly regarding repatriation or internationalization of Jerusalem and the other items of the Palestine question. I would brush aside for a moment any action that has been taken by the United Nations in connexion with Palestine. I would even assume that no such resolution has been adopted by the Assembly, and that die United Nations has never been seized of the Palestine question. Let us take the problem in that context: the United Nations was never seized of the Palestine question, with no resolutions passed by the General Assembly. Let us see whether the problem admits, by itself, to be examined, even without the Charter. 107. Here is a problem endangering the security of the area. A people has been uprooted from its fatherland. One million refugees are suffering the distress and discomforts of exile. The refugees are determined to go back to their homes’ — which is their right. Now or in the future, nothing will break their determination. It is their right, their inherent right, their natural right. As much as any nation represented in this Assembly, the people of Palestine are entitled to continue their national life in their homeland. So far conciliation and mediation efforts have failed, and against all the resolutions of the General Assembly Israel has resisted repatriation of the refugees and restoration of their property. No doubt, such a situation is bound to lead to a state of insecurity. The situation is already dominated by outbreaks of events day and night. To avert a threat to the peace, it becomes imperative that the Security Council should take effective measures in order to safeguard the rights of the people of Palestine. We believe that a commission representing the Security Council could effectively discharge this task. The composition and terms of reference with regard to this commission would be as follows: (a) The commission shall be composed of Iran, the USSR and the United States. The United States and the USSR would be representing the permanent members of the Security Council; Iran would be representing the non-permanent members. (b) The headquarters of the commission would be at Jerusalem, and the commission would be authorized to establish under its control the necessary offices and committees, and to engage the required experts. (c) The commission shall ascertain the wishes of the Palestine refugees, to determine who desires to return to his homeland and who wishes not to return. (d) The commission shall take the necessary measures with a view to facilitating the repatriation of those refugees wishing to return, and the compensation of the refugees who do not wish to return. (e) The commission shall arrange for the payment of adequate compensation for property lost or destroyed. (f) The commission shall provide for the necessary guarantees to secure all human rights for the refugees returning to their homelands. (g) As a preliminary measure the commission shall be empowered to recover the property of the refugees, to receive their revenues, income and their rights. 108. The terms of reference of the commission, the task of the commission is not a biased task. It aims at the determination of the wishes of the refugees themselves, ascertaining those who wish to return, and taking effective measures to make them return and live in their homeland, ascertaining those who do not wish to return and paying compensation to them. 109. Such a line of action does nothing more than give effect to the resolutions already adopted by the General Assembly. Likewise it does nothing more than Secure respect for human rights. 110. We have heard and we have read about various suggestions and solutions. We know of no other solution of an international character that could maintain justice and peace at the same time; the choice before us is peace or no peace.