77. Mr. President, my delegation associates itself warmly with the good wishes extended to you on your election to this high office. During the many years of your service at the United Nations we have all learned to value your intellectual and moral stature, your eloquence and your fairness and friendliness.
78. Your election gives me added satisfaction, because I have recently had the privilege of being the guest of your country and enjoying its generous hospitality. My visit to many parts of Latin America has given my Government and myself a deeper understanding of its traditions and its aspirations. We have always appreciated the profound contribution made to world affairs by the peoples of Latin America. Their passionate love of freedom, their inherent respect for the rule of law and their constant striving to achieve a harmonious relationship between all the States within their own region — setting in this an example for other regions — these are qualities they have brought to bear on the deliberations of our Organization.
79. As an ancient people which regained its independence little more than a decade ago, Israel views with gladness the broad sweep towards emancipation of dependent peoples, which we consider to be one of the outstanding historical events of our times. The number of countries which have already taken their seats amongst us is constantly growing and we all, I am sure are looking forward to greeting those who are now on the threshold of sovereignty. By the inclusion of these States our Organization is becoming more representative of mankind as a whole,
80. We in Israel are gratified over the dramatic change in the situation of Cyprus, our close and friendly neighbour. We are happy that the people of Cyprus, after years of strife, have the prospect of living in freedom and tranquillity. The Cyprus agreement is a most significant illustration of the pacific settlement, by direct negotiation, of seemingly intractable disputes. Here we have a clear example of what can be accomplished when there is a serious desire for peace on the part of all concerned. The General Assembly may take credit for having encouraged this.
81. The people of Israel as well as those of other new States have, I am sure, learned that, once independence is attained, it ceases to be an end in itself and becomes only a beginning. The ink on the declaration of independence is hardly dry when new and under-developed countries face the perplexing problems and pressures of establishing stable government, security and decent conditions of life. Independence gives them the chance to meet those challenges in their own way. But freedom does not exist in a vacuum. And with the attainment of independence by country after country the emphasis shifts to the substance of that freedom, to matters of economic development, scientific advance and Social betterment. These are vital questions and, in so far as they involve problems beyond the powers of these new States to solve, they are such as must be of concern to us all. There are perhaps many categories into which the countries of the world may be divided. But there can be no doubt that a division based on a high standard of living against a sub-minimal standard, a division of those that have and those that are struggling to have, is fraught with far-reaching dangers.
82. We cannot and must not acquiesce in a world situation in which children are denied the elementary necessities of existence, food, schooling or decent shelter. No ocean is wide or deep enough to drown the bitterness thus planted in the tender souls of those who will be the men and women of the future. Of all injustices this is the cruelest, and its implications are universal. It must become the concern of us all.
83. Naturally the more advanced countries bear the major responsibility for helping the less developed, either directly or through augmenting the financial and technical resources of the United Nations and the specialized agencies.
84. In coping with its own problems during the first decade of its statehood, Israel has received considerable aid from external sources and freely acknowledges its debt of gratitude. At the same time, we are convinced that the prerogative of economic and technical assistance need not and should not be confined to the few great Powers. The younger and less developed countries may also have something of value to contribute to the general pool. Between them, too, there are fruitful possibilities of co-operation, exchange of experience and mutual aid.
85. As peoples everywhere secure their political freedom or march towards it, as, science forges the means to wipe out hunger, disease and ignorance, the world of the twentieth century should be bright with promise. It is all the more tragic, therefore, that we should stand together here in the shadow of fear. While man-made missiles speed into outer space, the earth they leave spinning behind them is rent with hostility, and the missiles themselves symbolize the new forces which can wipe us all out. We, the smaller nations, can do little to bring these forces under control. That is the dread responsibility which history has thrust primarily upon the statesmen of the great atomic Powers. We fervently pray that they may soon reach agreement on a programme of disarmament, which has become the condition for human survival, and that the resources thus released may be devoted to constructive purposes for the good of mankind. Here we have the central theme of international statesmanship at the present time, within the United Nations and outside of it.
86. However, every nation, large or small, has its own inescapable responsibilities, its own mandatory standards of conduct, in the situation which faces us collectively. More than ever, this has become One World, and we are irrevocably involved with one another. In the words of the poet, John Donne, "No man is an island entire unto itself".
87. At San Francisco the founding of the United Nations aroused the hopes of mankind precisely because its coming into existence excluded the very concept of war. Our Charter was the fruit of the bitter experience of two world wars and of the tragic failure of the League of Nations. Its fundamental premise is that "the scourge of war" is outlawed and renounced as an instrument of national policy. The only exception is the inherent right of self-defence against armed attack.
88. As Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter provides: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
89. Thus not only war but the use of force and even the threat to use force is unequivocally prohibited under the Charter. The distinguished Foreign Minister of Japan, in his statement to this Assembly [797th meeting], has well described this as a "natural universal obligation”. For any Member of the United Nations to affirm that it is in a state of war with another Member and entitled to exercise right of war is inadmissible. From this rule no State can claim itself exempt, nor can the United Nations permit of any exception. It must never be forgotten that this so-called state of war is not simply a relationship affecting only the two States in conflict with one another. It has serious repercussions on other members of the international community.
90. My delegation has felt it essential to clarify this point because it goes to the root of the conduct towards Israel by its neighbours, and in particular by the United Arab Republic. By invoking an alleged state of war they attempt to justify warlike activities, including economic warfare, incitement to war, and interference with free navigation in the Suez Canal. The Arab voices calling for war and preaching destruction, which as we witnessed yesterday do not spare even the rostrum of tills solemn Assembly, are in harsh discord with the efforts of the family of nations at this very moment to mobilize all its resources of mind and spirit in a supreme effort to preserve peace.
91. One of the encouraging features of the period since our last session has been the growing acceptance of the need to resolve, or at least to relax, some of the basic international conflicts and tensions of our time. The attempt to thrash out problems in discussion and not by force, the interchange on every level of views and opinions, the opening of the doors to normal intercourse between peoples — all these are a welcome advance towards mutual understanding, giving renewed cause for hope. This is a field in which the United Nations has a major role to play. With all its imperfections, our Organization seeks to give expression to humanity’s longing for a world at peace.
92. Yet the bellicose attitudes and activities towards Israel of the Arab countries of the Middle East, led in this by the United Arab Republic, show little sign of relaxing and have taken on new and ominous forms. We are at this time profoundly concerned with the dangers implicit in the recent aggravation of Egypt's blockade measures in the Suez Canal. Since the State of Israel was established in 1948, Egypt has illegally prevented the free navigation of Israel ships and impeded the transit of goods through the Canal. No Israel vessel of any kind has been allowed to pass; cargoes consigned to Israel on vessels of foreign flag have been refused transit, if they appeared on an arbitrary "contraband list"; foreign vessels carrying cargoes to Israel have been blacklisted. In 1959 Egypt suddenly extended these restrictions to cargoes from Israel proceeding southward to ports in Asia and Africa. In March the Liberian ship Kapetan Manolis and the West-German ship Lealott were detained and their cargoes of potash, cement, and fruit juices confiscated. On 21 May 1959, the Danish ship Inge Toft, carrying cement, potash, marble, and brass scrap, was detained, and it is being held to this day at Port Said. More recently, a number of bags of mail from Australia, and a case of meteorological instruments on loan from a scientific body in that country, were also seized by the Egyptian authorities. Details of the various illegal measures mentioned above appear in a letter to the President of the Security Council dated 31 August 1959.
93. I wish to stress that interference with the transit through the Suez Canal of goods from Israel is without any precedent prior to six months ago. It constitutes a new policy, one obviously aimed, for reasons best known to the ruler of the United Arab Republic, at inflaming a long-standing issue and creating fresh tensions.
94. The interference with Israel ships and cargoes is a clear violation of: (a) The Suez Canal Convention of 1888, which guaranteed that the Canal would always be "free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag. The Canal shall never be subject to the exercise of the right of blockade". As stated, in article XI of that Convention, even measures for the defence of Egypt which it might take under article X "shall not interfere with the free use of the Canal". (b) The Security Council resolution of 13 October 1956, by which six principles regarding Suez were unanimously adopted. The two principal ones are: "(1) There should be free and open transit through the Canal without discrimination, overt or covert — this covers both political and technical aspects;" "(3) The operation of the Canal should be insulated from the politics of any country." (a) The Security Council resolution of 1 September 1951, which called upon Egypt to terminate its restrictions on, and to cease interference with, Israel shipping. (d) The Declaration by the Egyptian Government to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 24 April 1957 (registered as an international treaty under Article 102 of the Charter), in which Egypt pledged itself to maintain free and uninterrupted navigation for all nations in accordance with the Constantinople Convention. In this connexion the representative of Egypt stated at the 778th meeting of the Security Council on 20 May 1957: "... the Declaration is in keeping with that resolution (that is, of 13 October 1956) and hence with the Six principles, and even with the most difficult of them, the third, which states that the operation of the Canal should be insulated from the politics of any country." All this Egypt has blandly disregarded.
95. The implications of this blockade for the international community as such are far-reaching.
96. By undermining the principle of freedom of navigation through the Canal, a potential threat is created for any other country against which Egypt may choose to use its control of this international waterway as an instrument of political coercion. Freedom of passage is indivisible, and the denial of Israel’s rights strikes at the rights of all nations. Already Egyptian spokesmen have been quick to stake new and wider claims. In a letter published in The New York Times of 8 September 1959, the Press Counsellor of the "Arab States Delegations Office" declared that the "Canal is a waterway which belongs to the United Arab Republic and is open, through her courtesy, to world shipping. This is a far cry from Egypt's declared recognition only two years ago of the rights under the Constantinople Convention of the vessels of all nations to freedom of transit through the Canal. What was a matter of right has now become a matter of courtesy — to be withdrawn, presumably, at will. The implications for the shipping of other countries which may at some time lose favour in Egyptian eyes should be as obvious as they are ominous.
97. Egypt is in effect attempting to exercise a veto over the legitimate trading activities not only of Israel but of many other countries, particularly in Asia and Africa. To quote from paragraph 9 of the Security Council resolution of 1 September 1951: "... the restrictions on the passage of goods through the Suez Canal to Israel ports are denying to nations at no time connected with the conflict in Palestine valuable supplies required for their economic reconstruction, and ...these restrictions together with sanctions applied by Egypt to certain ships which have visited Israel ports represent unjustified interference with the rights of nations to navigate the seas and to trade freely with one another, including the Arab States and Israel."
98. To show the international ramifications of such illegal practices and the extensive character of the "unjustified interference" with third parties, let me mention only two facts: Firstly, by now over 330 ships, belonging to twenty-one different countries, have already been blacklisted, and are subject to the Egyptian sanctions referred to by the Security Council in the paragraph which I have quoted. Secondly, the recent incidents concerning the three ships, Kapetan Manolis, Lealott, and Inge Toft, involved interests in no less than ten third countries, namely, Ceylon, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Liberia, Malaya, the Philippines, Switzerland and the United States of America.
99. In any case, Israel, from this platform, desires to make it clear that it is not prepared to accept, and should not be expected to accept, a situation in which it is singled out for illegal discrimination. Moreover, we believe that the United Nations itself cannot accept this situation.
100. There is value to the principles of our Organization only when they are applicable to each and every Member State, large and small, without exception. The United Nations cannot compromise on principles. It cannot in one instance use all its collective moral pressure and in another exhibit an exaggerated leniency. We appreciate the efforts, so far without avail, of the Secretary-General and certain Member States. We have patiently awaited the effective intervention of this Organization. In this connexion we recall that on 20 February 1957, while the General Assembly was in session, the President of the United States, in an address to the American people on the subject of the withdrawal of Israel forces from the Sinai, declared: "... Egypt, by accepting the six principles adopted by the Security Council last October in relation to the Suez canal, bound itself to free and open transit through the Canal without discrimination, and to the principle that the operation of the Canal should be insulated from the politics of any country. We should not assume that, if Israel withdraws, Egypt will prevent Israeli shipping from using the Suez Canal ... ” The President went on to say that if Egypt did thereafter violate its International obligations, "this should be firmly dealt with by the society of nations". Subsequently, on 1 March 1957, a large number of Member States expressed their unqualified support in the General Assembly of Israel’s right to free shipping.
101. It has been a source of encouragement to Israel that in the general debate in this Assembly thus far, various delegations have again upheld the principle of free shipping for all nations in the Suez Canal. The moral authority of this body is deeply involved. Its response to the challenge confronting it will have implications far beyond those of Israelis own immediate interests. We hope that the attitude of the society of nations expressed in this debate will lead the United Arab Republic to put an end to a gross, arrogant and continuing breach of internationally guaranteed rights.
102. I shall not deal here at any length with Egypt’s vicious attacks on Israel, launched daily and in many languages by Radio Cairo. It is enough to quote the remarkable outburst of President Nasser of 27 July 1959, when he declared that "every Arab was looking forward to the next round in which the decisive battle will take place" in order "to get rid of Israel".
103. Statements of this kind are characteristic of the incessant war propaganda carried on by Cairo, poisoning the minds of old and young. They are in opposition to the solemn and unanimous condemnation by the General Assembly in its resolution of 3 November 1947, of "... all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;" [resolution 110 (II)].
104. They run directly counter, too, to the resolution which the General Assembly adopted as recently as the summer of 1958 following on complaints against the United Arab Republic. The General Assembly then unanimously called upon: "... all States Members of the United Nations to act strictly in accordance with-the principles of mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, of non-aggression, of strict noninterference in each other's internal affairs, and of equal and mutual benefit, and to ensure that their conduct by word and deed conforms to these principles.” [resolution 1237 (ES-III)].
105. The efforts of the boycott committee of the Arab League, located in Cairo, to wage economic warfare against Israel by every means at its disposal, affect dozens of States and hundreds of individual firms elsewhere in the world, and constitute a serious and unwarranted barrier to international trade. This activity likewise is a manifestation of the spurious claim to rights of war against Israel.
106. The record of the United Arab Republic in sowing discord and strife in our area has indeed not been limited to Israel. Within the last eighteen months, as the Assembly will recall, three Arab countries — the Sudan, Lebanon and Jordan — brought complaints against the United Arab Republic before the Security Council; Iraq has fiercely attacked its expansionist policies, and Tunisia has severed diplomatic relations with it.
107. The Middle East region has far too long been a breeding ground of tension and trouble. Peace and Stability there are an urgent need. They are possible only if all States within the area comply with the fundamental principles derived from the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular: (a) The principle that no Member State is entitled to claim or exercise rights of war, whether by interference with the freedom of shipping or by economic boycott or by any other means; (b) The principle of respect for the political independence and territorial integrity of all States in the region; (c) The principle that disputes must be settled by pacific means in accordance with the Charter.
108. The Israel Government subscribes wholeheartedly to these principles and is fully ready to cooperate in measures which may relax existing tensions in the Middle East.
109. The United Nations is entitled to look to the Arab countries of the Middle East that they too act in conformity with those principles. United Nations insistence that the United Arab Republic respect its obligations in regard to freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal might well pave the way to compliance by these Arab States with the Charter's principles of peace as a whole.
110. We are a small people which has suffered much in the past, and which is now trying to devote its energies and resources to rebuilding our ancient homeland in which our children could live secure and productive lives. The sterile conflict between our neighbours and ourselves creates an unhappy and dangerous situation not only for us but for them, too, and for the world at large. We seek nothing from them but the chance to live in amity, and together with them to develop our region for the common good of all those who inhabit it.
111. We see no justification for the barriers of fear, suspicion and hatred. It is not the existence of any nation in the area that should be a source of worry to any other people there but rather the desolation, disease and illiteracy which prevail within its own borders. Affecting tens of millions of men, women and children, this is the real enemy to be conquered. It is upon the winning of this war that the efforts of all should be concentrated.
112. Israel believes in a future of peace and cooperation in the area. It is in that belief and that hope that we urge the United Nations and its Member States to reject outright the claims, doctrines and practices of illegitimate warfare.