83. This gathering of ours is the thirteenth session of the General Assembly. As such it has been inaugurated and as such it has been publicized. The title, the fashion and the ceremonies all belong to the category of an ordinary and regular session. In form this nomenclature of the session is admittedly true, and it would be idle to question its validity. Yet, except for the calendar of the United Nations, this session, by its very essence, by its very nature, is not the thirteenth session. I say it is not, with all seriousness and upon deep reflection. It is no play on words or figures, nor am I engaged in a pun.
84. For, if we are to make a sincere examination of the present state of affairs now dominating the world, if we are to ascertain the fears of mankind and, lastly, if we are to read intelligently the barometer of the international atmosphere, this session becomes neither the thirteenth nor a regular session of the General Assembly. It is an emergency session of the highest order. To be more precise, this is the fourth emergency special session of the General Assembly held upon the heels of an emergency special session and, regrettably enough, within an interval of three weeks, fully charged with turmoil and excitement.
85. Therefore, it seems hardly necessary to make any Introduction for the current International situation. By itself, the general anxiety now plaguing the whole of mankind is an eloquent preface. The events of the day shoot their way to the top of our agenda, with or without our will. Coincidence or no coincidence, we confront the crisis face to face, as if at a rendezvous with the present session. It seems as though a wild race has been set in motion between the United Nations on the one hand and international outbreaks on the other. To follow this race, you have to follow the tracks of Mr. Hammarskjold, who is not only our distinguished Secretary-General but the master of our missions and the servant of our Charter. No sooner had he. embarked on his assignment in the Middle East than the situation flared up in the Far East. It is a wild race of events, which we must face squarely. It is a race that must be ruled out at any cost — any cost except the dictates of peace and justice. For such a race brings victory to none and defeat to all — not to speak of the untold misery, the indescribable destruction and the unthinkable annihilation.
86. This is no unwarranted fear. The brutal fact, and nothing could be more brutal, is that we live in a state of war. Although in a fragmentary form, it is an actual war with human suffering and material destruction. It is a war waged in more than one area of our world.
87. In Africa a crusade of liberation is on the march, with the Algerian uprising as its spearhead. It is a war of independence that has carried the battle far and wide, to every town and village, to every hill and valley and to every cave and meadow.
88. In the Far East, Korea and other countries are still visited by partition and disunity, the greatest plagues of our time. What is more, the Far East is now the theatre of war, and a hotbed for global war.
89. Thus, we are not only at the peak of tension; we are not only at the brink of war; I am afraid we are at the brink of the brink. Yet this is only a partial view of the current situation. Viewed through the items of the General Assembly's agenda, or through the annual report of the Secretary-General, the position is m less alarming.
90. Disarmament, as we all know, has progressed in every direction except disarmament. Commissions and sub-commissions were established; conferences and meetings were held in camera and in public. Resolutions were adopted and declarations made, and piles of records have grown in volume. But all this labour did not produce disarmament, rather it stepped up armament. It brought not a balanced reduction of arms but an unbalanced increase of military expenditure. It led not to a prohibition of atomic weapons, but to a stockpiling of hydrogen bombs and other weapons of mass destruction. It brought not the cessation of nuclear tests but the continuation of tests of all types and forms.
91. This year disarmament suffered another setback. There was a deadlock of default; no meetings were held and no deliberations took place. It was a deadlock that came after years of United Nations failures, preceded by a League of Nations frustration.
92. This has been a long and weary way, but the catastrophe is that it has no end in sight. What is more, the way seems to lead to a precipice of despair, not to a plateau of hope. Disarmament is becoming the growing literature of the United Nations and nothing more. We admit, however, that some disarmament is taking place, but only through substitution and replacement. Hence, by chemists and physicists, and by arms, troops have been reduced. Conventional weapons have yielded to atomic weapons, and these in turn are giving way to nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons. Now, with the age of space, weapons of inner space are on their way to surrender to weapons of outer space.
93. This is the disarmament we have been watching in the life of the United Nations — disarmed from the old, to be armed with the new; abandoning the less destructive for the more destructive; in a word, deserting the humanely barbarous for the ghastly barbarous. This is the balance-sheet of disarmament, whose only balance is, I am afraid, turbulence, anxiety and frustration.
94. Yet, we cannot shut our eyes to certain marginal gains whose gleam can penetrate the heavy clouds that hang overhead. First of all, we have the Warsaw talks dealing with the situation in the Far East. The whole world is now awaiting the deliberations in Warsaw with ardent prayers for a peaceful, just and honourable settlement. Here in the United Nations, the best service we can render is to keep the question, for the moment, outside our debate. In certain problems and at certain times, the greatest contribution of the United Nations can be made by its silence. This may seem paradoxical but the Far East question, for the moment, is one classical illustration. So let us keep silent for a while.
95. In the second place, the Conference of Experts of the atomic Powers, held last summer at Geneva, is not without significance. Notwithstanding that the findings were scientific, strictly isolated from political considerations, no doubt the results were a success. We must bear in mind that the possibility of detecting nuclear tests through a network of monitory Systems is in itself a great achievement. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a thrilling finding, crowned by unanimous agreement. If the matter is technically feasible and technically enforceable, then to refuse suspension of nuclear tests, or even to procrastinate on reaching an agreement, becomes highly serious. Now that scientists have agreed before the altar of science, statesmen are left to stand before the bar of history. They stand to make their choice — a choice between peace or no peace, between war or no war.
96. The Geneva Conference bring to our minds another international gathering held in the spring of this year, namely the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. It formulated the text of four conventions and an optional protocol of signature concerning the compulsory settlement of disputes. The Conference, however, failed on certain important aspects of the law of the Sea. In particular, the width of the territorial sea and the juridical regime of historic waters were among the subjects that remained unfinished. With this result one can hardly say that anything was really finished. The extent of the territorial sea is the base of the pyramid for this branch of international law. Unless the width of the territorial sea is defined, the law of the sea stands in a vacuum; and neither nature nor law can survive in a vacuum. Once the limit of the territorial sea is defined, we know where we stand. We can know where are the internal waters, the contiguous waters and the high seas — a delimitation of great importance in time of peace and in time of war.
97. This is no talking in the abstract. We have a vivid illustration, quite fresh find very much on our minds. We all know of the dispute that broke out between Iceland and the United Kingdom over matters pertaining to the limit of the fisheries. In the Conference at Geneva, Iceland stood for a twelve-mile limit of the territorial sea, whereas the United Kingdom advocated the three-mile limit, now a piece of antiquity in the archives of international law. After the Conference, the United Kingdom launched a fishing armada in the Icelandic waters in total disregard of Iceland's legitimate rights and in flagrant violation of the established modern trends of international law. It was a bloodless combat that was a source of amusement to the British Press. For what could Iceland do in the face of the British fleet, determined to take the law in its own hands or, more correctly, to take what the United Kingdom desires the law to be? It is a sad episode between two Members of the United Nations, between two members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and between a great Power and a powerless Power. We wonder whether the British Government would attempt such an adventure against a country of different calibre. This action on the part of the United Kingdom should cause concern to us all for many reasons. The British conduct, or to give it its legal term, the British misconduct, reflects an act of aggression against a defenceless country like Iceland. Also it reveals on the part of the United Kingdom an outrageous disrespect to the United Nations as the supreme organ for the settlement of international disputes. Lastly, it betrays British obstinacy in defending the three-mile limit, which once upon a time was a rule of international law. I stress again the expression "once upon a time", for today the three- mile limit is no more than a fallen idol — as brilliantly described by Professor Gidel, the great French jurist. It is really a fallen idol and the United Kingdom cannot sail the high seas with such an idol on board its glorious fleet.
98. This is how we view the major aspects of the international situation. But no matter how varied our appraisals may be, one central fact stands out in our minds without any controversy — namely, the impact of our region on international peace and security. The Arab homeland, stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, has recently provoked a great deal of excitement and interest. With its strategic position, with its vast economic riches and, what is more valuable, with its 80 million people full of zeal and determination to live free and united, this home of ours is becoming again one of the most important areas of the world. In testimony, if testimony is required, nothing could be more telling than a perusal of the agenda of the General Assembly ever since the creation of the United Nations.
99. In our region, a few months before the advent of the United Nations, there was established the League of Arab States with a Pact similar to the United Nations Charter in its alms and purposes except for one main objective. The Pact of the Arab League alms at closer bonds of harmony and unity. In its various fields of activity, this League of Arab States is not foreign to the United Nations, nor to its specialized agencies. In 1950 the General Assembly, in resolution 477 (V), extended a permanent invitation to the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to attend sessions of the General Assembly as an observer. Recently, at the third emergency special session, the General Assembly acted unanimously on a resolution [1237 (ES-III)] which took note of one of the main provisions of the Pact of the Arab League, an indication of great significance.
100. Doubtless the League of Arab States is a regional organization within the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. Therefore, it is high time that the Arab League should be recognized as a regional organization with all the rights and duties that such an organization can exercise and discharge. The members of the Arab League are Members of the United Nations, and to accord such a status to the Arab League is simply to recognize a legitimate existing reality. We hope that our Secretary-General, well informed and keenly interested as he is, will take the necessary steps to give effect to such recognition. The advantages need hardly be emphasized. The United Nations can find in the Arab League an effective instrument to establish in the area conditions of peace, security, economic development, cultural and technical progress and social advancement.
101. In this context, I take the liberty of bringing to you happy news. We rejoice in conveying to the Assembly that Morocco and Tunisia have decided to join the Arab League. In fact, this joinder is a mere formality. Tunisia and Morocco have always been with us, and we have always been with Morocco and Tunisia. Together we have shed our tears and blood; and together we have shared our rise and decline. For us, all of us, the time has come to unite our efforts for unity, and to liberate our energies for freedom.
102. Yet Morocco and Tunisia, as well as all the Arab States, have before this Assembly a burning question, affectionately close to their hearts — the question of Algeria. As a matter of fact, the question is ours, and ours is the question. On such a matter, we need not be shy or reluctant, for the problem is one of independence which is worthy not only of the support of the Arab nation, but of the whole civilized world.
103. In dealing with the question of Algeria, I deem it unnecessary to reiterate any of the many arguments in support Cl the discussion of that question. The competence of the United Nations and the right of the people of Algeria to independence have both been established. By now these matters have become past history for the United Nations. Our main concern should be focused on the present and on the future.
104. For the present, the picture is free from any shred of doubt or obscurity. A provisional government for an independent and fully sovereign Algeria was established a few days ago. A number of countries have recognized it and the rest will follow. The emergence of the Algerian Government, apart from its national necessity, was a natural step in the-right direction and at the right moment. It will be recalled that the question of Algeria has been on our agenda since the tenth session. Ever since then, neither the impact of war, nor the weight of the resolutions of the General Assembly, has led France to give up its intransigence and to recognize the Inherent right of the Algerian people to their liberty and freedom. The Assembly resolution of last year [resolution [184 (XIII)]. calling for pourparlers to arrive at a solution in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter, has been recklessly ignored by France.
105. Instead of pourparlers — a French term extended as a courtesy to France — French troop have translated pourparlers into further acts of aggression, this time against Tunisia as well as Algeria. The cowardly bombardment of Sakiet-sidi-Youssef, with which the Security Council was seized, is only one illustration. Another illustration is the one given by the representative of Libya earlier this morning.
106. On the political side, France has committed another violation of the General Assembly resolution. And here again, instead of seeking a solution in accordance with the Charter, France is attempting to find a solution in accordance with a new draft French Constitution, which must be the basis for a solution of the Algerian question. This is the letter and spirit of the General Assembly resolution which was adopted unanimously last year.
107. What has aggravated the situation is this so- called referendum, which has had too good results to be a good referendum and which the French Government staged a few days ago. It goes Without saying that a referendum conducted by France, in France and for France is not our concern, nor could it be. The only thing we can do is to extend our best wishes to France for a strong Government and a strong regime. But a referendum by France for the people of Algeria and under French administration is deplorable, unacceptable and entirely inadmissible. A constitution for Algeria can be framed only by the people of Algeria under conditions of freedom and liberty.
108. Obviously, this abortive referendum on the part of France does not possess the normal attributes of a lawful referendum. It is intended to concoct a solution which bears the appearance of democracy. It aims at imposing on this General Assembly a fait accompli. But neither the United Nations nor world public opinion would accept this international mockery.
109. Should France feel the least faith in this unconstitutional constitution for Algeria, we stand ready for the challenge. Let France walk out of the territory and we are ready to accept a referendum conducted under United Nations auspices. We accept a referendum under Mr. Hammarskjold, but not one under General de Gaulle. This would then be a genuine referendum, not one held at the point of a gun, let alone under various forms of pressure and inducement. Let us try to see whether the people of Algeria will cast their vote for France or for Algeria; whether they seek dependence upon or independence from France; and lastly, whether they will opt for Ferhat Abbas, the head of the Algerian Government, or for General de Gaulle, the head of the French Government.
110. If France has faith, if France has the courage and if France has the confidence, this is the real challenge — a challenge which we accept here and now and which we challenge France to accept here and now.
111. So much for the past. As to the future, better prospects are within reach if France should set aside its intransigence. There are chances for peace. Indeed; the chances for peaceful and co-operative relations between France and Algeria are not only possible but abundantly hopeful. A negotiated settlement of all disputes between the Republic of France and the Republic of Algeria is a central factor in maintaining peace and tranquillity in the whole of North Africa. With the emergence of the National Government of Algeria, this task now becomes easy. The two parties are legitimately constituted, with nothing remaining except the appointment of a distinguished and acceptable mediator, Mr. Hammarskjold, either as Secretary-General or as an outstanding personality of our times, or in any capacity whatsoever, would be acceptable to us to mediate the dispute between the Republic of Algeria and the Republic of France. It is no easy task, but Mr. Hammarskjold is the man to rise to the responsibilities of this assignment. He can secure a cease-fire between the parties based upon the recognition of the Algerian people's right to independence. He can go even further: he can arrange for a round-table conference to be held in the United Nations between the duly accredited representatives of Algeria and France.
112. This is the high road to peace. This is the only course open to France in order to safeguard whatever legitimate interests it claims in Algeria. This is the only solution under which the French community in Algeria can live, prosper and survive. In a word, this will mark the beginning of friendly and cordial relations not only with Algeria but with all the Arab States.
113. Perhaps this is the last offer that can be extended to France. Maybe it is the last chance for France to save what can be saved. For what will be the final outcome if France does not yield to reason and wisdom? The final result is quite obvious: it is war, and nothing but war. The Algerian people are determined to continue the war, not only on Algerian soil but anywhere and everywhere. So far, a second front has been opened in France itself by the Algerians — and "la guerre est la guerre". It is a war of liberation. It is a sacred war, and the Algerian people have an inherent right to war and to carry the war to its ultimate victory.
114. We should bear in mind, however, that in this war Algeria will not be alone. Many will come to its assistance, and with all forms of aid. This is quite normal and, I would say, admissible. Assistance, whether military or economic, under United Nations auspices and within its cognizance, is the fashion of the day. There is no reason why Algeria should not be included. Such assistance to Algeria is now feasible, firstly, because a government has been established and, secondly, because that government has declared a state of war with France.
115. As to the ultimate end, we harbour no doubts. The end will definitely be victory for Algeria. Such has been the course of history and such has been the successful outcome of all liberation movements all over the world. I scarcely need to cite cases and events, for the irrefutable evidence lies in the midst of this august body. Many States — yes, too many States — have come to this Assembly not through the main door of regular admission but right through the battlefields of liberty and independence. And no one more than France should realize this historic reality. For the modern history of France itself provides valuable lessons — and what tragic lessons they are. But they are lessons only to those who care to learn from their own experience.
116. Two highly important questions remain to be placed before this Assembly. Allow me to begin with what I should like to call the British belt around the Arabian peninsula. This is a big problem, which is itself the aggregate of a number of problems. I shall not refer to dates, causes or events. Any student of the history of international affairs is fully aware of the facts.
117. In a nutshell, the fact is that the United Kingdom — or, to be more accurate, the British Empire — has imposed its domination at different times all around the eastern and southern parts of the Arabian peninsula. From Kuwait in the north down to Aden in the south, a belt of British rule, domination or influence was tailored to fit British imperial interests. The pretexts were varied in accordance with the style of the day. At times, it was to curb piracy; at other times, it was to defend the Suez Canal; at certain other times, it was to protect imperial communications with India, the most precious pearl in the Crown. This is how the belt was snatched from the Arabian peninsula. Eventually this belt did not come out in a single territory. Today we witness the existence of some forty-five distinct units in the area. Just imagine forty-five separate entities for one and the same land, for one and the same people.
118. The matter, however, is not confined to this dismemberment. There is not a day without British aggression 'around the Arabian peninsula. One day, it is against Yemen; another day, it is against Oman; on still another day, it is against Lahej; some other day, it is against Burami or Aden itself. And so it goes — a succession of aggressions by rotation.
119. I have raised this question in the Assembly only to whisper to the United Kingdom from this rostrum — and I hope it will be nothing more than a whisper — that piracy exists no more, that India is not the pearl of the Empire any longer, and that the defence of the Suez Canal is no longer the responsibility of the British Government. The march of history cries out that the United Kingdom should leave the land to the people and leave the people to their land. If the British hobby is to fashion belts here and there, they had better practice that hobby at home. They had better do it around their islands, not around our peninsula.
120. Lastly, I come to the question of Palestine. I have purposely kept it to the end, not from the point of view of an ordered sequence, but precisely because I wish to leave with you the impressions of a problem that stands out as the greatest of all Arab problems.
121. I shall not weary you with the history of this question in the United Nations, with the arguments and counter-arguments that centred around it, and not even with the volume of resolutions regarding the repatriation of the refugees or the internationalization of Jerusalem. You all know the tragedy from beginning to end, and you all know about Israel's refusal to enforce the very same resolutions that gave rise to Israel itself.
122. This time, I intend to approach the problem in a new way — and, allow me to say, in a revolutionary way, but one that will perhaps relieve the international community of a problem that has more than once endangered world peace and security. And the word "problem" — and I stress "problem" — in relation to the question of Palestine should be the spark that must ignite your thinking.
123. In 1947 Palestine became the problem of the United Nations, After a lengthy debate, a resolution calling for partition and the creation of Israel was adopted [resolution 181 (II)]. As declared by the supporters of that resolution, it was meant — and I would stress this — to restore peace to the Holy Land. Partition was envisaged to make the problem cease to be a problem. In the words of the representative of the United States, uttered in 1947 [124th meeting], partition offers "the best practical present opportunity and possibility of obtaining, in a future foreseeable to us now, a peaceful settlement in Palestine". Now, I suppose, we have reached that future.
124. Today, in 1958, we find the problem still outstanding as a United Nations problem and with more grievous dimensions. Partition was decided upon and Israel was created, but there is no peace in the area, On the contrary, peace has become more remote than ever. The picture is simple and easy to present. A million refugees are still living in exile, and the Holy Land, with all its religious and sacred shrines, is always exposed to becoming the scene of destruction and desecration.
125. Yes, gentlemen, the problem you have attempted to solve is still the burning problem of the Middle East. Just consult the records of the Security Council in the last decade and you will find that the problem of Palestine is still the very same one you have endeavoured to tackle.
126. Thus, it becomes obvious that the assumptions which you took as a basis in the creation of Israel have been vitiated, not by one or two events but by a lengthy series of condemnations of Israel by the Security Council, a long history of tension, insecurity and instability through a whole decade. "What was the main object of the establishment of Israel and of partition? What was the premise upon which partition was decided? The United Nations aimed at bringing about a peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. The boundaries between Israel and the Arab States, it was forcefully argued in 1947, again by the representative of the United States speaking in defence of partition, "will be as freely crossed as the boundaries which separate the individual states within the United States".
127. That is the premise upon which the whole resolution was based; that is the assumption upon which the whole advocacy of the partition plan was based; and that is the premise upon which Israel was founded. Now, after ten years of United Nations efforts, there is still a great deal of talk about a peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. Well, that goes to prove that the 1947 "settlement" did not lead to a settlement Having drawn this conclusion, we are left with the only remaining alternative: the United Nations should reverse the course it has adopted.
128. Yes, it is a policy of reversal which offers the only chance for peace in the Middle East and in the world as a whole. And reversal is a, healthy policy to avoid the evils of a bad policy. In the United Nations reversal is provided for in our procedure as a rule to reconsider defective resolutions already adopted.
129. Doubtless, we have reached the stage when the United Nations must reconsider the position and the resolutions that gave rise to Israel. We have reached the stage where the United Nations should undo its own doing, for the whole experiment has proved to be a fiasco.
130. That it is a fiasco hardly needs any corroboration. Having received assistance in the amount of $2,000 million — and what a gigantic figure that is for a tiny little territory — Israel is still as unviable as when it started. Israel now has no frontiers; the demarcation lines are still armistice lines. Recognition of Israel by the Arab States has not come and will not be forthcoming, now or for all time to come, even should Israel survive for nil time to come.
131. Thus all the elements for a reconsideration of the creation of Israel are more than abundant. At one time a slogan was coined for circulation in the Middle East to the effect that Israel is there to stay. Nothing is so empty as this empty slogan. Israel is not there to stay and is not going to stay, and I will explain why in a moment. In spite of the recent arms shipment provided by certain Western Powers, Israel is not going to stay, and the reason is simple; it is not a question of action by the Arab States but, rather, action within Israel, Israel is undoing Israel; and here is where United Nations intervention is called for. The United Nations can help to bring about an orderly undoing of Israel, lest it should take place in a disorderly manner and cause confusion to the area.
132. The question may be asked, ’however, how this process of the undoing of Israel is taking place. That is a valid question and the answer is quite simple to give. The best I can do is to cite a Jewish source which speaks from the heart of New York. Only a few days ago, on 22 September 1958, the Jewish Newsletter — as though meaning to address the General Assembly- revealed to the world this process of the undoing of Israel, and I now read some passages from that Jewish Newsletter; "The Middle East crisis has obscured an important internal problem in Israel which would have occupied the front pages of the newspapers in normal times. Even now it is one of the big stories in the country and is the cause for anxiety among the top leaders. A recent emergency meeting of the Department of Immigration of the Jewish Agency, attended by Premier Ben-Gurion, revealed official figures showing that immigration to Israel for the first half of this year has reached an all-time low." The Jewish Newsletter goes on to say: "Immigration figures… show that there is considerable and growing immigration of Jews from all European countries to South America, Canada and the United States, while Israel, which is much nearer to these immigrants, is being studiously ignored, despite the free transportation and other inducements it offers." Having said this, the Jewish Newsletter proceeds to bring the most telling figures: "It was revealed that 6,000 Jews officially registered as immigrants have_ left Israel this year; 150,000 have left since the establishment of the State. A great many more, whose number cannot be ascertained, have left the country as tourists. According to official information, the number of people expected to leave Israel this year will reach 30,000. At the Polish Consulate" — and everyone knows how the Israelis view Poland — "in Tel-Aviv alone, 6,500 immigrants have registered for emigration." As to Israeli students, the publication states: "The most painful fact is that Israeli students who are sent by the Government to study at foreign universities, as well as instructors and other emissaries, do their utmost to remain in foreign countries rather than return home. Of 3,000 students who were sent abroad at Government expense, only 600 returned. In short, while practically all sources of new immigration have been closed, the flow of emigrants from Israel is steadily rising." Finally, the Jewish Newsletter ends by saying: "In short, the de-Zionization of Israel has begun."
133. This is how the undoing of Israel, by Israel, is taking place, and this is how we can get hold of the master key to the problem. The solution lies in the de-Zionization of Israel. It lies in a return to the situation which existed in 1947, when the legitimate Jewish inhabitants lived in a flourishing community as fellow-citizens with the Moslems and Christians of Palestine. It is a return to a decade ago, rather than to a three-thousand-year era of obscurity and wilderness.
134. This is a most revealing situation. The graph that has marked immigration into Israel now shows a decline. Another graph is now being drawn, a graph showing migration from Israel, a process which must be supported by the United Nations to help Israelis go back to their former homes. It is on these lines that the United Nations should reconsider the General Assembly resolution of 1947 which recommended the creation of Israel. To be more specific, and in the light of past experience, the United Nations should undertake the necessary steps which will lead to the following five principles: first, the restoration of the geographic and historic unity of Palestine; second, the repatriation of Arabs and Jews — this is a principle which must apply to both, a principle of repatriation for every citizen in the world — the Arab refugees to their homes in Palestine and the Jewish newcomers to their former countries; third, the constitution of Palestine as a democratic State, a United Nations Member, where all the inhabitants will have equal rights and duties — Moslems, Christians and Jews alike; fourth, the disarmament and demobilization Of all troops, the demilitarization of the whole country — and particularly Jerusalem, which the United Nations agreed to make a corpus separatum, an international entity — and also its neutralization, all guaranteed by the Security Council; fifth, the appointment — and I think that this would respond to the interests of religious communities all over the world — of a United Nations representative to report to the General Assembly on matters pertaining to the status quo of religious shrines and free access to the Holy Places.
135. In putting forward this plan for the solution of the Palestine question, we are not led by passions or emotions, although all aspects of life — the United Nations included — are lifeless without emotions or passions. We are guided by the natural, the normal, the healthy course of history. Palestine is an integral part of the Arab homeland, and such it has been since time immemorial. The Arab nation, now on its march towards final liberation, will not give up one single inch of its sacred territory. Let no one be mistaken on this matter. This is the final position, from which we shall not recede, now and until the end of time. It is not only the million Arab refugees who clamour to redeem their homes, but with them shall strive each and every one of the 80 million Arabs to whom Palestine is home.
136. This attitude on our part is not an adamant one; it is realistic, for there is only one road that leads to peace. It is true that all roads lead to Rome, but for peace there is one road and one road only. It is justice, and nothing but justice. In the history of political settlements one major absolute truth has stood the test at all times. Solutions based upon justice have lasted and survived, but solutions devoid of justice have met with failure and misery and frustration,
137. Failure and frustration are not our aim. Our aim is to seek peace based upon justice, and to seek justice based upon the real dictates of justice. To this end we are dedicated, and from this end we shall never deviate. So help us God.