Israel

It had not been the intention of my delegation to take up the time of the Assembly during the general debate with any problem of specific concern to Israel, but the attack which was launched the other day from this rostrum against Israel and the Jewish people by the representative of Iraq — and also some of the remarks made this morning by the distinguished representative of Lebanon — compel a brief rejoinder. 35. Mr. Al-Jamali apparently takes a rather naive view of either the knowledge or the political understanding of the distinguished representatives here present if he believes that the picture of the situation presented by him could pass muster as true to the facts. Applying to his task the gifts of an elastic memory and a pathetic faith in the notion, that it is possible to lend plausibility to an untruth by dint of endless repetition, he again chose to ignore or distort some of the most salient features of that phase of recent history in which both his country and mine were involved. 36. May I then be permitted to refresh his memory and straighten the record by pointing out first, that it was none other than the Arab States, including the Kingdom of Iraq, which set so pernicious an example by not merely ignoring a clear and emphatic recommendation of the General Assembly but by taking up arms in an attempt to defy and subvert it by force — an ignoble enterprise in which they duly failed; secondly, that it was as a result of that reckless adventure into invasion and aggressive war that the tragic problem of Arab refugees was created; thirdly, that the brunt of responsibility for the continuing failure to solve that problem again lies on the Arab States, which have added insult to injury by refusing to negotiate a peace settlement or even to make a tangible advance towards it; fourthly, that as everyone familiar with the problem is now aware, its solution can be attained only through resettlement in the Arab countries endowed with large areas of fertile and uncultivated land, and not through repatriation; fifthly, that Israel has repeatedly declared itself willing to contribute to the cost of such resettlement by the payment of compensation for abandoned Arab lands; sixthly, that within the short period of its existence Israel has given shelter and work to masses of Jews fleeing from Arab countries, including 120,000 from Iraq alone, who were despoiled of their property and arrived virtually penniless, while the world has yet to hear what the Arab States are prepared to do to relieve the misery of the Arab refugees — a misery which is of their own making; and lastly, that the position taken by the Arab States in declaring themselves to be still at war with Israel — a position given practical expression by an economic boycott, by a sea blockade and by a systematic attempt to sabotage Israel’s participation in regional organizations of the United Nations — is a violation of the Charter, a flagrant disregard of successive Assembly and Security Council resolutions, and a travesty of the protestations heard from this platform about the dedication of the Arab Governments to the ideals and ways of peace. 37. A great deal more could be added to bring out the true nature of the distorting mirror which has been set before you from this platform, but my delegation has no desire unduly to prolong what is in this context a futile verbal controversy. We would rather apply our efforts at an appropriate stage to the exploration of the practicable and realistic solution of a problem which can be solved, if not through direct settlement between us and the neighbouring Arab States, then at least by means of a common endeavour with the United Nations. 38. Surrounded as we are at present by unfriendly States, we are of necessity intensely sensitive to the problem of our own security and to the impact upon it of the world situation. Moreover, as a State very actively engaged in the twin task of reviving a country and rehabilitating a people, we are most vitally concerned in the preservation of international stability, for this effort of revolutionary reconstruction may be expected to prosper only in an atmosphere of peace. Our concern for the peace of the world is enhanced by the anxiety we feel for the fate of Jews scattered in minority groups all over the world, whose position in many a land, though happily not in all, continues to be precarious. Finally, and above all, we joined this Organization to take part in the world-wide effort at buttressing the edifice of peace, and we are a people humbly conscious of the duty to maintain that dedication to the ideals of world peace and human brotherhood which has been bequeathed to us by the visions and prophecies of our ancestry. 39. We therefore deeply share the distress so sincerely and eloquently expressed by many distinguished delegates during the present debate at the tragic plight of the world, split by a seemingly irreconcilable conflict between two rival political systems and balanced so precariously on the brink of a catastrophe. 40. The prize of this conflict is nothing less than the mastery over the soul of mankind, yet the furies which it is liable to unleash may in their deadly clash destroy mankind’s very body. The fateful question is whether, from the universal concern for the survival of human civilization and perhaps of the species itself, will emerge an over-riding common purpose and a will for peace powerful enough to protect society from self-destruction. 41. Moved by this anxiety, the delegation of Israel will give its most careful attention to the study of the proposals put before this Assembly for the limitation and control of armaments and for linking up all powers in an effective system of world security. 42. While the ideological clash between communism and free democracy is world-wide in its scope, there is being waged today yet another conflict, different in character, the scene of which is a vast belt of territories in Asia and Africa enfolding in one of its corners my own country of Israel. 43. We are witness to deep and far-reaching antagonisms, sometimes latent and smouldering, sometimes flaring up in violent disputes, between Occident and Orient, between the more fully developed and the so-called backward countries, between nations accustomed to domination and races still recently subject, between the high industrial civilization of the West and an East only just awakening from age-long lethargy. 44. The fact that Israel itself is no longer directly involved in this clash does not make us indifferent to its trend and outcome. Nor does the absence of peace between us and our neighbours militate against our sympathy with the struggle of the surrounding world. Short-term considerations of self-defence may dictate to us attitudes which in conditions of good neighbourly relations we should have been happy to avoid. Moreover, we do not hold for the unilateral abrogation of binding treaties. And we differentiate between national and world assets. We cannot agree, for example, that an international waterway should be treated as if it were an internal river of a country which just happens to lie astride it. Nor do we have much respect for the method of lashing the populace into fury in order afterwards to become its slave. But for the genuine aspirations towards freedom and independence we have a deep understanding. We try to lift our eyes above the spray of the stormy sea of controversy raging around us and look to the distant horizon of long-term solidarity. 45. Many of us have returned to our ancestral home in Asia, on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, after our fathers and forefathers had dwelt and wandered for centuries in the countries of the western world. We have re-established ourselves as a permanent and integral part of our old and new environment. We shall always maintain our links with the Jewish communities everywhere, while at the same time seeking new intimate relationships with our oriental neighbours, near and far. In trying to revive and reinvigorate our national culture in the country of its inception, we are anxious to preserve, to learn and to apply, the best elements of occidental tradition and modern progress as well as the teachings and attainments of western democracy. 46. What we see around us is, in the broadly historic sense of the term, a revolutionary phase, the root cause of which lies in the obsolescence of time-honoured relationships of dependence and sway. These no longer fit the new realities of national and international life; they call either for a gradual adjustment or for a swift change. Over vast areas, great and ancient peoples have emerged to sovereign statehood after centuries of subjection. Their own struggle for liberation, coupled in some cases with a far-sighted statesmanship of renunciation on the part of the dominant Power, have achieved the transformation. Yet the process is still far from completion, either in area or in extent. From formal to real independence there is a road to travel. Even old-established States seek to liquidate the heritage of inferiority in which they have long acquiesced. All these weaker nations claim an effective status of full equality. The Powers of the Occident, on the other hand, seek to safeguard positions on which depends not only their own strength but a great deal of the prosperity and security of the areas concerned. The historic query is whether these interests are necessarily incompatible or whether they can be reconciled. 47. There is yet another query. The clash between the, Orient and the Occident sometimes mingles with what is usually termed the conflict between East and West — that great controversy to which I have already referred. More often than not the former adds fuel to the fire of the latter and renders its dangers more widespread and acute. Yet there is no organic unity between them. The historical coincidence of the two struggles need not lead to their political identity. It is vital, I submit, that it should not. For their merger is fraught with an incalculable aggravation of the world crisis. To keep them separate is one of the most crucial and challenging tasks of international statesmanship in this critical epoch. 48. Multitudes of mankind in backward countries, consciously or otherwise, now stand at the crossroads of choice between true democracy and its complete negation. For some the die has already been cast, with the result that over immense territory democracy has missed its chance of earlier realization. Weakness of purpose, ineptitude and . corruption — above all the setting of exclusive privilege above the interests of the common man — have already proved democracy’s undoing. But there are other rapidly awakening nations still on the threshold of a fateful decision to be made by them or for them. So here comes the second query. Must the attainment by the peoples of full independence be necessarily accompanied by the loss of their internal freedom? Is there no other way to ensure their material and cultural progress than by subjecting them to the ruthless efficiency of a dictatorial regime? Would not progress then be achieved by the sacrifice of the highest values of social life — the free awakening in the masses of people of the dormant creative impulses and the full many-sided development of man’s personality? Yet dire need and unimaginative or selfish statesmanship may drive those countries, one after the other, to take the irrevocable plunge. Should this trend prevail, democracy will find the area of its application convulsively and progressively restricted and may face the danger of losing its historic battle on a continental scale. 49. Against this background, the struggle between the two divergent political systems and social philosophies, in the ultimate outcome of which the fate of the undeveloped and under-developed areas of the world seems, destined to play a decisive role, is not the only world issue to be faced. Quite apart from that grave collision, differences of race, religion, culture and economic standards, sharpened by complexes arising from close and prolonged relationships of political and social inequality, are liable to grow into unbridgeable gulfs and wreck for a long time to come the hope of a united humanity. The United Nations, which has assembled under its banner all nations, large and small, on a footing of complete equality without distinction of colour or creed, is the symbol of the fate of all of, us not only in the ultimate triumph of the brotherhood of man, but in the fulfilment of this lofty ideal in our own time. Yet a symbolic framework of unity and mere statutory authority are not enough to resolve these grave discords between inherently unequal Powers which today threaten the stability of the Middle East and becloud the future of large parts of Asia and Africa. 50. Let me re-state the original question posed about the inevitability or otherwise of violent change. That we have here to deal with a world in transition is fully accepted by all concerned. It is the manner of the transition that constitutes the crux of the problem. Can it evolve peacefully by mutual consent and accommodation, or must it take the form of crisis and upheaval? It is not merely a matter of safeguarding legitimate interests and protecting lawfully acquired rights. Something far more important is here at stake. 51. From the standpoint of the common good in the long run the question is two-fold. First, can the inevitable transformation be achieved without the destruction of the economic assets created under the old regime, without the lowering — even if it be temporary — of the standards of living of masses of people; in short, without interrupting the continuity of material civilization in the areas affected? Or is it a decree of fate that all the good in the former phase must be swept away with the evil, and the backward nation, handicapped for a long time past by its enforced inferiority, must start its hard upward struggle from an even lower level? Secondly, can the old relationships between the weak and the strong, so humiliating for the former and so demoralizing to the latter, be amicably transformed into a mutually advantageous partnership between two equals, or must there be a violent rupture causing havoc and ruin and leaving behind it for a long time to come a chasm of bitterness and hatred? 52. A synthetic and harmonious solution of the problem entails on both sides courageous forethought, freedom from prejudice and wise restraint. These, apparently, are not easily forthcoming. A sense of superiority, born of a privileged position enjoyed without challenge for a considerable length of time, dies hard and is not quickly discarded. Insistence on legal rights is not always mitigated by regard for genuine and deep-seated psychological susceptibilities. Too often, undue reliance is placed on economic rationalism, on the assumed in dispensability of outside assistance, or on the inexorability of economic logic. The part played in the counsels of poorer and weaker States by their own appreciation of what is their fundamental national interest, and by considerations of national pride and self-respect, is underestimated. That one can be proud while poor — and even particularly proud just because one is poor — is not always realized. Fatal blunders are sometimes committed through disregard of these elementary truths. 53. On the other hand, grave danger's of self-defeat beset the path of a young nationalism. A nation forfeits its moral title to freedom if, on achieving it, it proceeds to oppress its minorities and to deny the right to independence of its neighbours. On a different plane, independence conceived merely in terms of formal sovereignty remains an empty shell, unable to withstand internal and external pressures. Political power entails economic and social responsibility. Without a constructive policy of social justice and material advancement, both independence and democracy fail to strike root in the hearts of the masses of people, lose their vitality and eventually break down under the impact of outside aggression or internal, disorder. National independence and democratic institutions alike are brought into contempt by their inability to improve the lot of struggling humanity. 54. Inequalities of military strength, level of culture and economic development are the products of history. Unless constructively faced, they will constitute a growing menace to democratic government, to international stability and to the peace of the world. They call for a universal framework of international solidarity and discipline, pledging all to the defence of each. They entail a system of international and interstate assistance such as has been initiated by the United Nations, and such as has so beneficially been practised on a most generous scale by the United States. A stable and harmonious international order can only be achieved by the rule of law and respect for established right, as well as by their peaceful adaptation to the changing realities of the modern world. 55. The issue between the Occident and the Orient is not merely one of temporary adjustment of the most pressing conflicts. What should be sought is a broad current of positive cultural integration. Mutual respect for the great human values crystallized in the tradition of both worlds is the basis for a relationship of trust and solidarity leading to the organic unity of the future. 56. In this, it is up to the Occident to go more than halfway. In bringing to the Asian continent its own modem civilization, it has so far been hardly aware of the latter’s ancient cultures. Yet it may be that in them is hidden that spiritual strength which alone can ennoble and purify technological progress and save man from becoming the slave of matter. Much as the Orient can benefit from Western science, the Occident can enrich its spiritual treasury by drawing upon the wisdom of the East. It is a challenging enterprise for the United Nations to promote and enlarge the contacts between the two worlds on a cultural and social plane aimed at the growth of confidence, mutual study, co-operation and a deepening sense of their indispensability to one another. 57. Without ceasing to grapple with the burning problems of security and of resistance to aggression, the United Nations should increasingly address its attention to the fundamental issues of the survival of man and his chances of a better life. It is by striking at the roots of the basic problems of food and shelter, health and education, that the United Nations may succeed in providing that common denominator for all mankind which will in the course of time prevail against the cleavages of political systems or cultural traditions. The only way, incidentally, of bringing the dissidents back to the fold of common international endeavour is by a compelling demonstration of massive achievement. Much indeed has already been accomplished in these fields by the specialized agencies, the salutary effect of whose work is felt in ever-widening areas. Yet a bolder initiative and more ambitious scope appear to be urgently called for. It is enough to mention the grave prospect which confronts a rapidly increasing world population, of progressive soil erosion and the consequent menace of food shortage, to give the measure of the global effort — global in this case in the literal sense of the term — which is incumbent on the United Nations. 58. The peace of the world depends on the readiness of the contending political and ideological blocs to live together. World harmony requires that East and West in the historic sense of the term should learn to be brothers. Humanity’s survival entails a concerted effort on the part of the United Nations in all fields, political, cultural and economic, to meet the issues which face us and will face the generations to come. With unremitting toil and the full utilization of all its organs and agencies, the United Nations must persevere in forging the united will of the world as the instrument of its own salvation. 59. In offering these reflections to the collective thinking of the Assembly, the delegation of Israel does so in the name of a people whose trials and torments, through long and dark centuries, have neither crushed its national pride nor extinguished its creative genius. It ventures to express these ideas on behalf of a State whose emergence may well be viewed as a triumph of the human will against all odds of history. It voices the passionate belief that it is within the capacity of the organized human race to attain by common endeavour the fulfilment of those ideals of freedom, brotherhood and human dignity whose proclamation at a momentous juncture from this glorious city will continue to ring in the ears of tormented posterity as a message of eternal hope. 60. In conclusion, I should like to add my delegation’s whole-hearted expression of gratitude for the generous hospitality offered to us all by France and by the City of Paris to that so eloquently voiced by many other representatives. 61. I should also like to take the opportunity of offering from this platform the Israel Government’s hearty congratulations to Leon Jouhaux, that staunch champion of social justice in France and everywhere, on the important international distinction so justly conferred upon him.