80. Mr. President, I wish at the outset to congratulate you on your unanimous election to the Presidency of the General Assembly at its twenty-second session. We are confident that you will steer the General Assembly at this crucial session with wisdom and skill. We also see in your election the restoration of a sense of justice and equality in the geographic representation in this high office.
81. The delegation the United Arab Republic also wishes to take this opportunity to express its appreciation to the President of the twenty-first session, Mr. Abdul Rahman Pazhwak. He presided over the deliberations of this General Assembly with rare talent and resourcefulness. He also presided over the last emergency special session and led its work with objectivity and dedication, leaving a distinct mark in the records of this august Assembly.
82. The General Assembly today is called upon to continue its efforts begun during the last emergency special session to eliminate the consequences of the aggression which took place against the Arab countries on 5 June 1967.
83. At its present session, the United Nations has another opportunity to ascertain its role in the maintenance of international peace and security, the elimination of aggression and the safeguarding of the territorial integrity and political independence of States. We are in full agreement with the statement of the Secretary-General in the introduction to his annual report in which he said:
"It is indispensable to an international community of States — if it is not to follow the law of the jungle — that the territorial integrity of every State be respected, and the occupation by military force of the territory of one State by another cannot be condoned." [A/670l/Add.1, para. 49.]
84. In considering the aggression which has taken place against the United Arab Republic and other Arab countries, the international Organization must be fully aware that it is also determining the future of international relations and the rule of law. If the General Assembly fails to perform this fundamental duty, what in the future would deter a State from committing aggression against another State, and what would make other countries feel secure? We are all faced today with one question: whether we are to live in a civilized world or whether we are on the threshold of an era of international chaos where force will rule supreme.
85. The deliberations of the fifth emergency special session revealed a unanimous sense of commitment on the part of all Member States with respect to military occupation of States and the inadmissibility of military occupation of any part of one State by another. Absolute support of this principle was the common denominator of all the statements in the emergency special session. This was natural, for this is a principle on which the whole structure of the Charter of the United Nations is based. It is an essential corollary of the principle which prohibits the use of force. Despite this, however, we in the United Arab Republic were shocked to see the General Assembly fail to put this principle into practice. It was unable to adopt a resolution condemning aggression and calling upon the aggressor to withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally from the territories it had occupied and, at the same time, it failed to demand compensation for all the crimes committed and the damages resulting from that aggression. This wide gap between the principles emphasized in the deliberations and the negative results achieved by the emergency special session constitutes, in our opinion, a rare phenomenon which requires the most serious consideration.
86. We realize that there has been great misunderstanding on the part of a number of States regarding the realities of the situation which was before the emergency special session — a misunderstanding which was reflected in their voting last July. We also realize that the responsibility for this misunderstanding may be partially ours for we had believed that the justice of our cause was in itself sufficient to convince others.
87. But, it is equally true that there has been a sustained campaign of deception carried out on a global scale which has sought to distort, and even to reverse, the facts put before the international community. The organizers of that campaign utilized all the great resources and means at their command. We admit that we do not possess corresponding means to counter this barrage of propaganda. This campaign of deception was also accompanied by a campaign of pressure — pressures of all kind. Thus, it was possible for some Powers, through pressure and deception, to impress upon others that Israel did not commit an act of aggression but that it is the Arabs who carry out war.
88. Consequently, today we in the Arab world are faced not only with the challenge of the presence of aggressive Israeli forces on our territory; we are equally faced with the challenge of informing international public opinion of the actual facts regarding the Israeli aggression.
89. We live in a world in which the great Powers exert immense influence. The power to exert this influence carries with it the corresponding responsibility when dealing with international questions to adopt positions conforming to the Charter requirement of objectivity and justice. Proceeding from this fact, we consider that not only has the United States regrettably adopted a position of alignment with Israel and hostility towards the Arab people, but also a position which is inconsistent both with its commitments emanating from the United Nations Charter as well as the commitments strongly emphasized in its own statements prior to 5 June.
90. Consequently, the United States bears a special responsibility in this situation, as a result of its extensive assistance to Israel — politically, militarily and economically. By refusing to admit that Israel has committed an aggression, the United States has moved away from the just position it should have taken regarding the consequences of aggression.
91. On many occasions before the Israeli aggression of 5 June, the United States affirmed its support of the political independence and territorial integrity of the States of the Middle East. It also affirmed beyond any doubt its opposition to aggression. Indeed, the United States invited the States of the region to rely upon the fact that it continued to oppose any violation of the territorial integrity or political independence of the States of the Middle East.
92. Some days before the aggression, specifically on 23 May 1967, the United States Ambassador-designate in Cairo handed me an official memorandum which contained the following words:
"In the present situation, the Government of the United Arab Republic as well as other Arab Governments, can rely on the certainty that the Government of the United States maintains firm opposition toward aggression in the area in any form, overt or clandestine, carried out by regular military forces or irregular groups.”
93. On the same day that the United States Ambassador-designate handed this memorandum to me, President Lyndon Johnson delivered his well-known speech in Washington in which he emphasized to the leaders of the Middle East that the United States was "firmly committed to the support of the political independence and territorial integrity of all nations of the area".
94. A sincere adherence to this commitment on the part of the United States would inevitably have led the United States to condemn the Israeli aggression. We realize that the United States has differed with us on some of the positions we had taken prior to the aggression, but these differences in themselves cannot justify the negative position taken by the United States following the Israeli aggression. This position was a major cause of the failure of the General Assembly in its special emergency session to adopt a resolution for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the aggressive forces.
95. Naturally, we compare the United States’ negative position regarding the Israeli aggression of 1967 with its just position in 1956 regarding the Israeli aggression of that year. The United States then unequivocally opposed the aggression and, consequently, the General Assembly was able to meet the grave challenge to world peace both positively and with efficacy. The success of the United Nations in 1956 was a success for the Charter and the rules of international justice. As a result, the international organization acquired power which enabled it later to perform a major role in dealing with other international questions. The success of the General Assembly in 1956 created a new source of protection for small States and was a warning to the forces of aggression.
96. In order for the United States to fulfil its obligations under the Charter to oppose aggression and support the political independence and territorial integrity of the States in the region — a position it had affirmed before 5 June — the United States must stand among those countries who condemn the Israeli aggression and insist on the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of aggressive forces to positions occupied before 5 June.
97. A genuine respect for the territorial integrity of States can mean only one thing: opposition to aggression and insistence on the immediate and unconditional elimination of its consequences. We do not believe that the General Assembly can possibly hold the position — that elimination of the consequences of aggression can be a matter for bargaining or negotiations.
98. We therefore consider that the primary responsibility of the international community, as represented in this international Organization, is to take effective measures to secure the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of aggressive forces to the positions held before 5 June. This is a responsibility which emanates from the collective-security system, the most essential base of our Charter. It is our responsibility here not to condone any position which would reduce the Charter to mere words and the international Organization to a debating society.
99. I wish to discuss now some of the misconceptions which seem to have impressed themselves on the minds of some of my colleagues here. First, I wish to refer to the allegation of some who describe our position as a position of war rather than a position of peace. To those I would address the following questions.
100. Was it not Israel which committed the perfidious aggression of 5 June? Was it not the Israeli armed forces which launched a massive attack on the territories of the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan, even while the Security Council was considering the problems of the area and at a time when every responsible leader in the world had appealed to all parties to refrain from any use of force? Was it not Israel which, in October 1956, committed another perfidious attack against Egypt? Was it not Israel which, before and after 1948, committed an aggression against the people of Palestine and by acts of force and barbarity transformed a million Palestinians into a million refugees? Was it not Israel which committed the horrendous massacres at Tiberias, Haifa, Jaffa, Safad, Gaza, Khan Yunis, Qibya, Hula, As Samu, and many others, in which thousands of Palestinian men, women and children were murdered in cold blood? Is it not Israel which today acts as though aggression can legalize territorial annexation, and which indeed has already declared the annexation of Jerusalem? Is it not Israel which for the last nineteen years has adopted armed retaliation as a basic policy under the guise of self-defence in order to justify its continued, systematic aggression against the Arab countries?
101. As recently as November 1966, after Israel had destroyed the Arab village of As Samu, the Security Council censured Israel and emphasized to Israel in paragraph 3 of Security Council resolution 228 (1966) that “… actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repetition of such acts".
102. Can anyone, in answering these questions, hold the view that it is the Arabs who exercise a policy of war and that Israel exercises a policy of peace? War is not a state of mind; war is aggression. Thus, continually to commit acts of aggression is to wage war. The Charter does not differentiate between war and aggression. Peace, like war; is made up of deeds, not words.
103. Some have interpreted certain steps taken by the United Arab Republic before the last aggression as an exercise of war. In this connexion, I should like to refer to certain established historic facts.
First, the starting point in the present crisis was Israel’s threat to Syria. This was a threat which followed a number of acts of aggression against Syria, including an air attack on 7 April. This threat was equally evident from the statements made by Israeli officials during April and May threatening to invade Syria and occupy its capital. Second, in the chain of events which followed, the United Arab Republic took no step beyond its established sovereign rights, whether it was the request for the withdrawal of UNEF or the application of its sovereign rights in the Strait of Tiran. Third, the United Arab Republic emphasized throughout that it was committed to a position of defence. I wish to refer particularly to two diplomatic contacts between the United States and the United Arab Republic during the days prior to the aggression.
104. On 23 May 1967, President Lyndon Johnson sent a message to President Gamal Abdel Nasser in which he urged the avoidance of hostilities. On 26 May, Mr. Eugene Rostow, United States Under-Secretary for Political Affairs, called the Ambassador of the United Arab Republic in Washington to inform him that Mr. Abba Eban, the Foreign Minister of Israel, had just arrived from Israel and had asked for an urgent meeting with Secretary of State Dean Rusk, on a matter which could not be delayed. During that meeting, Mr. Eban informed Mr. Rusk that the United Arab Republic was going to launch a surprise attack within the following twenty-four hours. Mr. Rostow informed the Ambassador of the United Arab Republic that he had been instructed by President Johnson to warn the United Arab Republic against any such action. He said that if this were to happen, it would have far-reaching consequences and added that the United States Government affirmed that it would continue to exert all its efforts with the Government of Israel to refrain from any military action against the United Arab Republic. President Nasser replied to President Johnson in a later message that the United Arab Republic would not initiate any use of force and would not go beyond its position of defence. President Nasser also informed Secretary-General U Thant of this same position during his visit to the United Arab Republic. This was stated by the Secretary-General in his report to the Security Council on the situation in the Near East.
105. Fourth, the United Arab Republic also declared its readiness to co-operate in seeking a solution to the crisis. It welcomed the visit of the Secretary-General to Cairo on 24 May, extended full co-operation to him and reacted positively to proposals he made. We also asked [1343rd meeting] the Security Council to consider steps with a view to securing the maximum operation of the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement. During this time there were contacts also between Cairo and other capitals, including Washington, with a view to finding ways of preventing the deterioration of the situation. In this connexion it was agreed that the Vice-President of the United Arab Republic would visit the United States for this purpose, and 7 June was mutually agreed upon as the date of his visit.
106. These facts clearly illustrate that the United Arab Republic, while emphasizing its commitment to a position of defence, took all possible steps on its part to prevent any deterioration in the situation, co-operating with others. But those efforts were destined to fail because an aggression had already been planned to take place on 5 June.
107. I turn now to the position taken by some countries that "direct negotiations" should take place between Israel and the Arab States, We realize that some of those countries, in subscribing to this position, are motivated by the fact that the principle of negotiation is a sound principle provided by the Charter as a means of pacific settlement of disputes.
108. But we, on the other hand, insist that faithful adherence to the principles of the Charter requires the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of aggressive forces to the positions held before 5 June with no conditions or bargaining. If we were to allow the withdrawal of aggressive forces from territory of Member States to be a matter subject to bargaining and negotiation, we would be negating in fact the whole principle of territorial integrity and the inadmissibility of armed occupation by one State of the territory of another State. That principle was rightly upheld by all Member States in the fifth emergency special session of the General Assembly. We were particularly indebted to the Latin American countries for their great contribution in asserting that principle as a basic principle of the Charter and one of the essential rules of international law.
109. Israel insists on direct negotiations in order to free itself through negotiations from commitments previously arrived at through negotiations to which it is bound by virtue of its signature. Israel also seeks through new negotiations to legitimize a fait accompli and to allow it to proceed with its territorial ambitions.
110. In 1949, negotiations were held between Israel on the one hand and the respective Arab States of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon on the other. These negotiations were held in accordance with the decision of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 [resolution 62 (1948)], and with the assistance of Dr. Ralph Bunche. They resulted in the General Armistice Agreements, signed by Israel and the Arab States concerned in 1949.
111. These Agreements stipulated that their provisions could not be revised except by mutual consent. Furthermore, the Agreements laid down certain basic principles which could in no way be subject to revision. These principles are:
(1) Respect by both parties of the Security Council's injunction against resort to military force in the settlement of the Palestine question;
(2) Abstention from any aggressive action by armed forces of one party against the other; and,
(3) Full respect by each party of the other party’s security and freedom from attack by its armed forces.
112. The General Armistice Agreements of 1949 also established a Mixed Armistice Commission composed of seven, with each party t designate three members and the Chairman to be the United Nations Chief of Staff or his representative. The function of this Commission was to supervise the execution of provisions made in the Agreements.
113. The Agreements delineated certain geographic sectors on both sides of the armistice lines which were not to be occupied except by the respective defensive forces of both parties. It also designated as such the El Auja demilitarized zone, from which both Egyptian and Israeli armed forces were to be totally excluded. Only the United Nations Observers were to occupy this zone and the Headquarters of the Mixed Armistice Commission was to be maintained there.
114. To those who invite us to enter into direct negotiations, it is our duty to refer briefly to Israel's attitude towards the General Armistice Agreements and to ascertain whether Israel has fulfilled its obligations emanating from these Agreements in order to ask for new negotiations.
115. Ever since the signing of the Armistice Agreements, Israel has continued its aggressive military operations across the armistice lines. In 1953 Israel began to occupy the El Auja demilitarized zone, expelling its Arab inhabitants, and later, on 9 October 1955, even expelling the United Nations Observers, lowering the United Nations flag, and occupying the whole demilitarized zone.
116. In October 1956, it committed its perfidious aggression against Egypt, and the Prime Minister of Israel at that time actually declared that the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement was dead and buried and that it would never be resurrected. That is a declaration not very different from those being uttered at present by the Israeli officials. Today Israel asks for new negotiations only in order to free itself from the commitments emanating from the Armistice Agreements and for this purpose seeks the endorsement of this international Organization.
117. I should like to refer also to the negotiations which took place between Israel and the Arab States with the assistance of the Palestine Conciliation Commission. This Commission was established by the General Assembly on 11 December 1948 [resolution 194 (III)]. It was to mediate between Israel and the Arab States and to seek agreement by negotiations of a settlement of outstanding questions. During the early months of 1949, negotiations took place in Lausanne, Switzerland, and resulted in the signature by Israel and the Arab States of the Protocol of Lausanne which adopted a territorial settlement on the basis of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, All this took place prior to the admission of Israel to the United Nations.
118. Only a few weeks after Israel signed the Protocol of Lausanne, it alleged that the circumstances had changed and that it was no longer committed to the Protocol agreement. The fact was that its signature had been merely a manoeuvre aimed at enabling Israel to be admitted to membership of the United Nations. Once that was achieved and Israel found that the Protocol put limitations on its expansionist objectives, no time was wasted by Israel to declare that it no longer was committed to the Protocol. This is another example of how far Israel respects its International obligations.
119. I have referred to Israel's policy towards its international obligations emanating from international agreements. This policy does not differ much from its policy towards the United Nations resolutions.
I could read out to the Assembly a long list of resolutions adopted by this Organization which have been violated by Israel, but I prefer in particular to refer to the latest resolutions adopted by the Security Council and by the General Assembly.
120. What was Israel's answer to the General Assembly resolution on Jerusalem [2253 (ES-V)]. Israel flouted that resolution, defied the unanimity of the international community, as well as the spiritual sentiments from which that resolution emanated, and continued its expansionist policy with the annexation of Jerusalem.
121. What has been Israel's position regarding the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly throughout its last eighteen sessions in which Israel has been called upon to enable the people of Palestine to exercise their right to return to their homeland? Israel's reply is evident in the fact that the people of Palestine have remained in the refugee camps. What was Israel's reply to the resolution [237 (1967)] adopted lately by the Security Council in which it called upon Israel to allow the return of those citizens who were forced to leave the territories occupied by Israel after 5 June? Israel's reply has been to place one obstacle after another in the way of the return of those citizens.
122. That has been Israel's consistent policy and its own brand of respect for its international obligations, whether arising from international agreements it has signed or from those which the international Organization has asked it to respect. Why, then, does Israel ask for negotiations with the Arab States? Israel aims at one essential objective: that is, to use new negotiations in order to release itself from previous obligations and to impose a fait accompli and score political and propaganda victories.
123. Some have attempted to project the question of Israeli aggression against the Arab countries from an artificial perspective. They have alleged that the origin of the problem in the Middle East lies in a refusal by the Arab States to recognize Israel's right to a secure existence in the region. In fact, an objective evaluation of the problems of the Middle East indicates that tension in that part of the world originates from two sources: first, Israel's continued violation and denial of the rights of the people of Palestine; and, second, Israel's aggressive and expansionist policy against the Arab States.
124. Israel expelled the people of Palestine from their homeland, transformed more than 1 million Palestinians into refugees, usurped their territory and properties, and has continued to ignore their established rights. In its latest aggression of 5 June, Israel again chased out the people of Palestine, expelling them from the Western Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza Sector, and creating another problem by turning 350,000 citizens of Jordan and Gaza into refugees.
125. The conditions created by Israel, and the sorrows it has inflicted on the people of Palestine, constitute a unique historic phenomenon. Israel has created an abnormal situation and has refused to correct it. It is only natural that this abnormal situation has remained a source of tension and instability in the region.
126. The United Nations, which bears a cardinal responsibility towards the people of Palestine, is in duty-bound to undertake effective measures to secure the implementation of the numerous resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on the question of Palestine, session after session. The United Nations played a basic role in the creation of Israel and in all the subsequent developments of the history of the Palestine question. That role makes the United Nations an essential party to the question. Consequently, the rights of the people of Palestine are not a subject for negotiation or bargaining between the Arab countries and Israel, for those rights are established rights within the framework of the international Organization, upon which falls the responsibility of securing their implementation.
127. It is erroneous on the part of some to believe that the problem of the people of Palestine can be solved exclusively from a humanitarian point of view. It also cannot be considered simply as a tragedy similar to an earthquake or an epidemic which fate causes to fall upon a certain people. The question of the people of Palestine is a national and political question and must be dealt with on that basis.
128. The United Nations resolutions recognizing the right of the people of Palestine to choose between repatriation and compensation emanate in fact from the principle of self-determination, a principle which is acquiring ever-increasing importance. No other principle in contemporary international relations has gained more strength and universal recognition. It is our conviction that the realization of a genuine, durable and just peace in the Middle East requires that the United Nations continue to recognize this principle and take appropriate steps to ensure its implementation in a free atmosphere and with adequate safeguards.
129. I wish to refer to the other source of tension in the Middle East, namely, the policy of aggression exercised by Israel. We witness it daily. Israel continues to disregard the Security Council cease-fire decision of last June [resolution 233 (1967)]. Practically every day Israel is committing acts of wanton aggression and destruction against the cities along the Suez Canal; bombarding heavily populated centres; killing hundreds of children, women and men; destroying hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, office buildings and factories. These daily acts of aggression indicate that Israel adopts aggression against the Arab countries as a national policy.
130. This policy of aggression is closely linked to Israel's expansionist policy stemming from the Zionist mentality. It is manifested today in the steps taken by Israel towards the annexation of the city of Jerusalem. It was equally evident during the Israeli aggression against Egypt in 1956 when Mr. Ben Gurion, then Prime Minister of Israel, declared that they had "freed" Sinai. The same mentality is being revealed nowadays in statements by Israeli officials flooding all international media of information and suggesting annexation of one part of occupied Arab territory or another. This policy of aggression and expansion is a real source of tension and is a constant threat to peace in the Middle East.
131. I have already explained that it is erroneous to attempt to analyse the crisis of the Middle East as one resulting from the absence of arrangements for security in that part of the world. If Israel had genuinely felt insecure, it would have insisted upon and upheld the Armistice Agreements, which prohibited the use of force, ensured the security of their respective parties and ensured freedom from fear of attack by the armed forces of one party against another.
132. But Israel's insistence on a hostile attitude towards the Armistice Agreements and its unilateral renunciation of these agreements can only underline one fact, namely, that Israel is seeking a different kind of security. It seeks to secure Its freedom of action to fulfil its expansionist objectives, to secure its aggression against the people of Palestine, and ultimately to negotiate the Arab States into acquiescence to the results of its expansionist and aggressive policy.
133. It is for this reason that we consider it imperative on our part to emphasize the dangers inherent in Israel's consistent efforts to relieve itself from Its established commitment to the Armistice Agreements and to consider these Agreements as obsolete. All the breaches of peace which have taken place In the Middle East have in fact resulted from the violation of the Armistice Agreements. The answer does not lie in burying these Agreements as Israel would wish, but lies instead in insisting on the maximum operation and strictest adherence to the provisions of the Agreements.
134. In this connexion it may be useful to refer to the note which the United States Ambassador designate in Cairo delivered to me on 23 May 1967, which contained the following; "We believe that the General Armistice Agreements remain the best basis for maintenance of peaceful conditions along the border." The memorandum went on to say: "We hope the United Arab Republic will join us as well as other Governments in urging all parties to the agreements to observe scrupulously their provisions." We, on our part, believe that total respect for the Armistice Agreements constitutes a basic factor in the maintenance of security in the Middle East.
135. I have explained the basic causes of the problems in our region. We are convinced that sustained and serious efforts aimed at enabling the people of Palestine to exercise their right to self-determination, as specified in the United Nations resolutions concerning the people of Palestine, together with Israel's abandonment of its policy of aggression and expansion would, without a doubt, lead to peace and stability in the Middle East.
136. However, the General Assembly must be fully conscious that it is now faced with an aggression and a most serious breach of the peace. The situation resulting from Israeli aggression must be eliminated immediately, unconditionally, and without being a subject for negotiations. The provisions of the Charter are both unambiguous and categorically firm. This Organization has an essential duty which supersedes all other duties—that is, to adopt appropriate resolutions condemning Israeli aggression, to secure the withdrawal of aggressive forces to the positions they occupied before their aggression, and to provide compensation for the crimes and damages caused by the aggression.
137. The present Arab generation was born facing the challenges of building its economic structure and founding a prosperous society. The first prerequisite for internal development is the existence of peace and stability, and also the mobilization of all potentials to compensate for what we have missed through generations of colonialism. However, tension and instability have been imposed upon this generation by foreign Powers. It is inconceivable that a nation facing the demanding challenges of development such as we are facing would wish to engage in war once every decade or wish to be obligated to channel a substantial portion of its human and economic resources towards armament. But we have been faced with a situation which has imposed upon us: the inescapable necessity of arming ourselves in the face of Israeli aggression. Israel believes that it can secure its existence through aggression. If history can be a guide to any of us, then the history of the military Nazi aggressions should particularly convince Israel that war is never the path to peace.
138. The international Organization is called upon to discharge its responsibilities in the elimination of the consequences of aggression. The Charter does not provide any other course. This is also the path to peace, If the international Organization failed to perform this most sacred duty among all other duties, it not only would be turning away from the Charter but would equally be turning away from the road to peace. The people of the United Arab Republic, faced with an aggression on their territory, are fully aware of their essential national responsibilities and are determined to eliminate the consequences of aggression. Thus our call upon the United Nations to perform its duty is In fact a call for peace.
139. We in the United Arab Republic look forward to achieving further objectives in the realm of economic development and social progress; to increasing our contribution to international prosperity; to reopening the Suez Canal, at present closed by the aggression, so that it may play its role once again in the flourishing of international trade and the deepening of understanding between peoples, and allowing the recently-found oil fields in the Egyptian desert to further our progress and promote mutual benefit. Equally, with the High Dam approaching completion in true cooperation with the Soviet Union, we stand on the threshold of new horizons of development. Yet we know that all our resources for construction will be meaningless until all traces of aggression are eliminated.
140. Before concluding my remarks on the Israeli aggression, I wish to express the deep gratitude which the United Arab Republic feels towards the States that upheld the rules of the Charter and adhered to the principles of international justice. I wish, in particular, to mention the just and honourable position that was taken by the Soviet Union which stood closely by our side through difficult times. The history of Soviet-Arab relations provides a great example of the principles of peaceful coexistence and constructive co-operation among States and peoples. The response by the Soviet Union to help in the construction of the High Dam is an historic contribution to Egypt's resistance to economic pressure, the construction of the Egyptian economy and the doubling of Egyptian arable land.
141. At a time when the friendly Soviet people and their leaders are preparing for the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Socialist revolution, I express the sentiments of the people and the Government of the United Arab Republic in congratulating the Soviet Union on that historic occasion and record our admiration for the immense accomplishments they have scored in the building of the Soviet State. We equally congratulate the Soviet Union on the honourable position it has taken in support of the peoples struggling for fulfilment of their national aspirations.
142. I have found it incumbent to allocate the largest part of my statement in this general debate to state our stand on the aggression committed against my country and other Arab States, I did not refer to the other items on our agenda. However, the United Arab Republic delegation will assume its full duty in tackling these issues in their respective committees. In dealing with these questions the United Arab Republic will be guided by established principles: the principle of non-alignment and peaceful coexistence, opposition to colonialism and racism, and the strengthening of international co-operation. The United Arab Republic delegation will also assume its responsibilities in defending the just Arab and African causes.
143. The war in Viet-Nam is not an item on our agenda, for abnormal conditions make this Organization incapable of dealing with this question. We have always subscribed to the view that the first prerequisite to ending the Viet-Namese war lies In the basic step of ceasing the bombing of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. We would not consider it just to ask the Viet-Namese people to accept a political solution while their homeland is being bombed and heavy human and material casualties are being inflicted upon them. We demand that the United States unconditionally stop its air raids against the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, so that peace will prevail in Viet-Nam and the valiant Viet-Namese people will be able to determine their own future and build their country in an atmosphere of peace and freedom.
144. We are in the midst of an important and decisive stage in the development of international relations in which this international Organization is facing basic challenges. The General Assembly in determining its response to these grave challenges should ponder its course most carefully so as to ensure that in the future we will be able to look back confident that we had chosen the right path.