156. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to extend to you my sincere congratulations on your election to the Presidency of the General Assembly at its twenty-second session. Your election is a tribute not only to your country and to the group of socialist States of which Romania is a member, but also to your own high qualities of statesmanship, qualities which I have known and appreciated from our frequent personal contacts, especially during my visit to your country last spring.
157. It is a happy coincidence that your election should take place in the jubilee year of the Great October Revolution. I take this opportunity to extend my warmest congratulations and best wishes to the Soviet people on the anniversary of this great historic event. I should also like to pay a tribute to the outgoing President, Ambassador Abdul Rahman Pazhwak of Afghanistan, who presided over three strenuous sessions of the General Assembly with great ability and distinction.
158. The Assembly is meeting this year in sombre circumstances. As the Secretary-General stated in the opening sentence of the introduction to his annual report, "the international political situation has not only not improved; it has in fact deteriorated considerably" [A/6701/Add.1, para. 1]. He rightly attributed this deterioration to the recourse to violence and threat of violence throughout the world, and warned that "When unbridled use of force is accepted and intimidation and threats go unchallenged, the hopes of a world order such as the one outlined in the Charter become dim and hollow" [ibid., para. 151].
159. These are words uttered by a man deeply devoted to the cause of human brotherhood and understanding, and I should like to add my voice to those which have preceded me in expressing our appreciation and admiration for U Thant's tireless efforts for peace in the world. The disillusionment and anguish clearly reflected in the Secretary-General's words were echoed by many representatives in this debate. But nowhere has this feeling of frustration and disappointment been more manifest and justified than in the handling by the United Nations of the issues arising out of the war unleashed by Israel against our people last June.
160. Before I deal with this problem which, understandably, is of paramount importance for us, I should like to state that my country's position on the other important questions on the agenda of the present session, such as disarmament, peace-keeping, decolonization, development, human rights and China's representation in the United Nations, will be fully expounded by my delegation when they come before the appropriate bodies. I should, however, like to refer briefly to a question which is of world-wide concern.
161. A cruel war continues to be waged in Viet-Nam, inflicting unimaginable suffering on the people of that unhappy land. It cannot be repeated too often that a military solution imposed from the outside can never solve what is essentially a civil war, fought for political ends. Once it is conceded that a military solution is not the answer — to use the exact words of Ambassador Goldberg [1562nd meeting] — what justification is there for continuing the savage bombing of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam? It is only in the immediate and unconditional cessation of the bombing that there can be any hope for rational and fruitful discussions of the underlying political issues.
162. Ultimately there must be a return to and scrupulous observance of the Geneva Agreements of 1954, which provide the soundest bases for ending this vicious conflict which has brought suffering to millions of people and imperilled international peace and security.
163. There is on the agenda of the present session an item entitled "The situation in the Middle East" (item 94), which the Assembly decided to consider as a matter of high priority. Yet the other day we heard the Foreign Minister of Israel suggest [1566th meeting] that the United Nations should take no substantive action but merely content itself with a call for direct negotiations between the parties. This approach found no support in the Assembly, and with good reason. The implications of Israel’s proposal are clear. Twenty years of United Nations work and involvement in the region would come to an end, the numerous resolutions adopted by the General Assembly upholding the rights of the refugees would be discarded, the elaborate machinery set up to keep the peace would be dismantled, and all past obligations assumed under the auspices of the United Nations would be nullified. And all this for what purpose? The answer, clearly and simply, is this: to put the stamp of international approval on Israel’s new gains at the expense of the Arabs.
164. Israel must have known that the Assembly could not subscribe to such a course, but it presented its ideas none the less, not expecting them to be adopted by this Assembly but in the hope that its intransigence would in the end prevent the United Nations from taking any action, which is really Israel’s aim and purpose. The Israelis undoubtedly hope to achieve this negative purpose with the help and support they confidently expect to receive from some of their powerful friends.
165. This situation reflects the deep-seated hostility and mistrust with which the United Nations is now viewed by the ruling circles in Israel. The Israelis consider the United Nations as an interfering nuisance. That is why we hear from Mr. Eban such statements as "the Middle East is not an international protectorate" and solutions "cannot be grafted onto it from outside" [1566th meeting, para. 145], I wonder, in passing, whether that was the view held by Mr. Eban in 1947 and 1948 when the partition plan was grafted from outside, although every State in the region had voted against it and the great majority of the people of the country whose fate was being decided strongly objected to it. Is this not a typical example of the opportunism which has become the most characteristic feature of Israel’s contribution to the work of this Organization?
166. While Israel virtually alone advocated a hands-off attitude, the overwhelming majority of Members felt that the United Nations should continue to play an active role in finding a solution to the crisis. Any other position would condone territorial expansion and make it the sole basis for a political settlement which, in such circumstances, would inevitably be in favour of the side which chose to use military force.
167. The central issue emerging from this debate, as indeed was the case in the emergency session, is the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied Arab territories. I can do no better than repeat what the Secretary-General said in the introduction to his annual report on this fundamental question of principle. His words express, better than I can ever hope to express, the concern that the military occupation of territories of Member States has evoked throughout the world. He said:
"There is the immediate and urgently challenging issue of the withdrawal of the armed forces of Israel from the territory of neighbouring Arab States occupied during the recent war. There is near unanimity on this issue, in principle, because everyone agrees that there should be no territorial gains by military conquest. It would, in my view, lead to disastrous consequences if the United Nations were to abandon or compromise this fundamental principle." [A/ 6701/Add.1, para. 47.]
Further on 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." [Ibid., para. 49.]
I know that many of my colleagues in this Hall have quoted those passages from the introduction to the annual report, but those words are of such primary importance for the future of the Organization that I considered it my duty to repeat them in this statement.
168. The same serious and urgent challenge which faced the emergency session of the General Assembly faces us today; and it is: will Israel be allowed to solidify its aggression, and will it be encouraged in its avowed aim to annex the Arab territories it has occupied? I do not think there is a single representative in this Hall who is not aware of the ominous implications in this situation for the United Nations and, indeed, for the civilized world order which the Charter seeks to establish. If this drift towards international anarchy is not halted, no State will be immune from attack or from mutilation of its national territory.
169. A good deal has been said about the necessity of linking the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Arab territory to an affirmation of the Charter principle that all Members are entitled to security and freedom from threat of attack — a principle, I might add, which was incorporated in all the General Armistice Agreements signed in 1949, agreements which have been repeatedly flouted, and now denounced, by Israel.
170. This question of security and national existence has proved to be the most potent weapon in Israel’s propaganda arsenal. We are all familiar with the picture that Israel propaganda has presented to the world — of a small country whose very existence is threatened by predatory neighbours — and with the endless repetition of stories about its vulnerability, the danger of its imminent destruction and strangulation, a word which Mr. Eban seems to be particularly fond of using. One who was unaware of the facts would think that Israel had always been in the region and that suddenly and out of sheer malice the Arabs plotted and prepared for its destruction.
171. I think the time has come to explode, once and for all, that myth, which gave Israel so much undeserved world-wide sympathy and made the Arabs, who have for years been the victims of aggression, appear as the aggressors. Mr. Eban read to us copious quotations of warlike statements from various Arab
sources. I can assuredly quote a few choice phrases from some of his more talkative colleagues past and present. But the point is not who talked but who acted.
172. As the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic said in his statement:
"War is not a state of mind; war is aggression ... Peace, like war, is made up of deeds, not words." [1573rd meeting, para. 102.]
The facts, and only the facts, will reveal who is really the aggressor and who is the victim, who should be worried about security and territorial integrity and who is the one whose insatiable territorial ambitions are the principal threat to peace in the area.
173. But we do not have to go far back to get the answer. The recent war in the Middle East has provided us with all the evidence we need. Mr. Eban rightly said that the question of responsibility for the war was a crucial one — a question which has the closest relevance to our present discussion. Now, two questions must be answered before we can determine that responsibility. The first is who started the war, and the second is whether there was any justification for starting it.
174. Regarding the first question, there is hardly any need to state once again that it was Israel which started the war. General Dayan was kind enough to confirm to the world that the Arabs did not attack first, and had to pay for their mistake. Now we come to the second question — was Israel justified in attacking its Arab neighbours? The Charter fully recognizes the right of self-defence in case of armed attack. But no such attack was launched against Israel. Because of its scale and power, the Israeli attack could not possibly be considered as a spontaneous act of self-defence. The element of surprise necessary for military success could hardly have been achieved if the United Arab Republic was on the verge of attacking Israel. There can be no room for doubt, therefore, that that attack, far from being an act of self-defence, was the end-product of a carefully drawn up plan of aggression.
175. Israel justifies its attack mainly on two grounds: the statements emanating from certain Arab quarters, and the closing of the Straits of Tiran. Regarding those statements, no one can seriously suggest that war can be justified on such a flimsy basis. Bellicose statements came from both sides; and, in any event, it is acts and not words that count.
176. As for the Straits of Tiran, neither the interests involved nor the legal controversy relating to the right of innocent passage could possibly justify the launching of an armed attack of such massive proportions. And, in any case, the concept of preventive war is not admissible under the Charter. The only permissible casus belli is self-defence against armed attack. And the closing of the Straits of Tiran was not such an act of armed attack. If we add to that the assurances of the Arch States that they would not initiate offensive action, and consider the progress which had already been made at that time to find a generally acceptable formula for the solution of the problem of navigation, can there be any explanation of Israel's attack except in terms of its war aims, which we now know go much beyond asserting the right of innocent passage? If there were any doubts about that they were entirely removed by Israel's declared intention of annexing the newly-conquered territories — an intention proclaimed to the world a few days after the leaders of Israel had declared on the morning of 5 June that their country had no territorial ambitions.
177. The fifth of June was not the first, and I fear will not be the last, time that the Arab countries will be forced to fight to defend themselves against Israeli aggression, unless the United Nations rises to the challenge facing it today. The true nature of the conflict between Israel and the Arabs bears no resemblance to the picture which Zionist mythology has presented to the world: a picture of the Arabs with their vast homelands and rich resources, maliciously and wantonly grudging a long-persecuted people their little corner of earth which their ancestors had once occupied thousands of years ago. Some well-meaning people who have been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda have attributed this to so-called religious antagonism or traditional Arab-Jewish hostility; others have attributed it to the clash of two nationalisms; still others have laid the blame on the unbridled ambitions of certain Arab leaders. But what are the facts?
178. The conflict arose not because of any historical or religious antagonism between Arabs and Jews. On the contrary, we Arabs can pride ourselves on the fact that throughout our long history and at the height of Arab power in the Middle Ages the Jews found a haven and refuge in Arab lands and their scholars and theologians were able to make their greatest contributions to Jewish philosophy and ethics under the benevolent and tolerant rule of the Arab caliphates of Cordoba and Baghdad. The conflict arose because in the nineteenth century European Jews calling themselves Zionists planned to establish a State in a country which for centuries had been overwhelmingly Arab in population, land-ownership, language and culture. This was not a clash of nationalisms, nor was it the usual antagonism between settler communities and indigenous populations. The new society which Zionism wanted to establish in Palestine was to be completely and exclusively Jewish. Such an aim was bound to be opposed by the Arabs of Palestine for the very simple reason that no nation in the world gives up its homeland to accommodate another.
179. As the Zionist programme could be implemented only at the expense of the Arabs, the interests of Zionism and those of the Arab people of Palestine soon became mutually exclusive, and the issue could be settled only by force. It could not be otherwise, since the Arabs of Palestine could not be expected to co-operate in their own destruction. The story of the implementation of the Zionist programme is well known, and it is this gradual and piecemeal implementation, frequently by force, that is at the heart of the problem and that is the basic cause of the conflict.
180. An important characteristic of Zionist strategy which perhaps more than any other has contributed to the success of the movement is that it never, at any time, has fully revealed its aims. Limited demands which to an outsider seemed eminently reasonable were presented from time to time, and as soon
as they were granted farther "limited and reasonable" objectives were proclaimed, until step by step the whole programme would be fully implemented. Thus, at the beginning the early Zionist immigrants came as religious people who wished to worship their God in the land which contains their holiest shrines. Then, when the time came for the establishment of agricultural settlements, the immigrants shed their religious robes and became pioneers.
181. The next stage was the Balfour Declaration and the Jewish National Home. Then, in the thirties, the banner of unlimited immigration was raised to provide a haven for the victims of Nazi persecution in Europe. During the Second World War the demand for a national home changed into a demand for a national State. Thus, partition was advocated so that a State could be established in part of Palestine, preferably with a minimum number of Arabs, whose mass exodus in 1948 — largely engineered by the Haganah — was described by the late Chaim Weizmann as a miraculous solution of the major problem facing the State. A further stage in the Zionist programme was reached with the occupation of the West Bank of the Jordan and Syrian and Egyptian territory. Already steps are being taken to go still further. Jerusalem has been annexed despite two clear resolutions [2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V)] of the General Assembly, and new settlements are being established in occupied Syrian and Jordanian territories, while the ceasefire on the Suez Canal is repeatedly violated, with the wanton and indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians in the heavily populated cities in the area.
182. As can be seen, the story of Zionism in the Arab world is one of continuous advance, gradual but relentless and pursued with fanatical single-mindedness. In view of this record of uninterrupted expansion and violence, are we not entitled to ask: Whose security is really threatened, the Arab States’, or Israel’s? The United Nations has a special responsibility towards the long-suffering people of Palestine because everything that has happened in the last twenty years has flowed directly from the United Nations decision to partition the country against the wishes of its people, and from the United Nations failure to put an end to Israel's continuous expansion.
183. This is especially pertinent in respect of the refugees, who have been and still are the principal victims of Israel's expansion. They were considered from the beginning to be the special responsibility of the United Nations. Their welfare and their right to return to their homes was guaranteed and accorded priority over and above all the other aspects of the problem — a matter of such importance that the representative of the United States at the time, Mr. Dean Rusk, stated:
"We could not accept the proclamation of peace as a prerequisite for the return of refugees, and hope the Assembly would not make this a condition ... they need not wait for a proclamation of peace ... these unhappy people should not be made a pawn in the negotiations for a final settlement."
It would be interesting to know whether the United States delegation today shares the views of its Secretary of State.
184. What is the United Nations to do now? Israel tells us to do nothing, to leave it to Israel and the Arabs to settle their conflict by direct negotiation — in other words, to give Israel time to consolidate its occupation and proceed with its plans for annexation. I cannot believe that there is any fair-minded person in this Assembly who would in all honesty and sincerity expect the Arabs to negotiate while their territories are under military occupation. I do not think the Israelis seriously believe that the Arabs will ever engage in such negotiations of capitulation. Their real aim is to keep the situation fluid and unsettled until a new opportunity presents itself to occupy more Arab lands and to render a few more hundreds of thousands of Arabs homeless. That is Israel's programme of peace.
185. We have had no illusions about this, but there are some who are either unable or unwilling to face the facts. However, at long last Israel feels bold enough to reveal a good deal more than it usually does about its real intentions. The mask is off. Actions are finally catching up with all those empty and insincere declarations. To some it is perhaps an unpleasant revelation, especially to those who had convinced themselves that their deep sense of guilt would be expurgated if they permitted Israel to get what it wanted at the expense of the Arabs.
186. If the United Nations fails to act now, then a new outbreak of armed conflict will be inevitable. Let there be no mistake about it: failure to come to grips with the problem will lead to war, because there are limits beyond which no people can endure the humiliation of continued enemy occupation of its territory. If the international community is unable to end that occupation, then there is no alternative left for our people but to fight — a desperate, unequal and hopeless fight perhaps, but a fight that will restore the honour and self-respect of a nation which has lost much, but not its faith.