85. Madam President, on behalf of the delegation of Lebanon
and on my own behalf, I should like to offer you our
sincere congratulations on your election to the presidency
of this twenty-fourth session of the General Assembly of
the United Nations and to express our hope that this
Assembly will work for peace among the peoples, in
accordance with the principles of its Charter.
86. I also desire to pay a tribute to the memory of His
Excellency Mr. Emilio Arenales, who presided so ably over
the twenty-third session of the General Assembly.
87. Madam President and fellow representatives, I address
you on behalf of a country which knows that its existence,
its independence and the freedoms to which it is passionately
devoted can be safeguarded only under the rule of an
international morality under which law is respected, aggression
is outlawed as a means of pressure, States reject armed
force as an argument in the settlement of their disputes,
international relations are based on justice, mutual respect,
the spirit of co-operation and an absolute regard for peace,
under which, in short, nations live in conformity with
humane and civilized principles.
88. During the journey which brought me here, my
thoughts more than once went back to the year 1945 when,
in San Francisco, I participated with the Lebanese delegation,
together with the delegations of fifty other countries,
in the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations. That
was a time of great hopes. In less than thirty years the spirit
of domination and racism had plunged the world into two
wars, one more devastating and murderous than the other.
The victorious coalition wished to open up a new era in
history, an era in which nations, whether powerful or small,
would live in peace and with equal rights, when men would
at last be free from the anguish of war, from the fear of
losing their birthplaces, their ancestral tombs and their
homelands, of being enslaved or persecuted because of their
race, religion or thinking.
89. Such were our hopes and our ideal when drafting the
Charter and establishing the organs of the United Nations.
The General Assembly and the Security Council represented
for us the highest courts of justice and the
uncompromising guardians of the new international order.
90. All those who lived through those historic moments
no doubt recall the climate of confidence and hope which
prevailed throughout our labours. Would it be an exaggeration
to say that today, after the many sufferings to which
mankind has been incessantly exposed, there is unfortunately
a danger that these sentiments may soon give way
to disillusionment and disenchantment?
91. Although the United Nations has many happy achievements
to its credit, the fundamental problems on which the
future of peace. security, justice and human well-being
depend still confront us in ail their magnitude and in all
their tragic scope. Among all these evils, may I touch more
particularly upon the one that most directly concerns my
own country, namely, the conflict in the Middle East?
92. As early as 1949, in order to fulfil the “messianic
destiny of the people of Israel”, more than a million
Palestinians were expelled from their homes and land by
terrorism, violence and fire. For more than twenty years
these “refugees” have been living in poverty, bitterness and
nostalgia for their usurped fatherland. But today some
profess to be shocked because these people have rebelled
and because resistance to oppression is being organized and
is becoming a key factor in the problem—a new factor
which cannot and should not in any way be underestimated.
93. In 1967, the June war led to the occupation of the
whole of Jerusalem and the West Bank of the Jordan, as
well as Sinai and the Golan Heights; And on 21 August
1969 came the burning of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which was
deeply resented by both Christendom and Islam. Was not
this burning, as was stated recently by the Algerian
representative in the Security Council [1508th meeting],
“the tragic accomplishment that must follow the complacency
of the international community“?
94. It would take too long to cite the decisions of the
General Assembly and of the Security Council which have
remained dead letters for Israel. This contempt for the
United Nations seems to be the policy of Israel. The
peaceful statements of its leaders are intended solely to dull
the vigilence of international opinion, Behind them is
visible a desire for territorial expansion; an arrogant
mystique of greatness and domination is inspiring Israel’s
policy of force and dictating its behaviour.
95. Among the Israeli leaders, General Dayan seems to be
the one who best illustrates this policy by the statements he
makes from time to time and which at least have the merit
of being frank. From these statements one could compile a
genuine and highly enlightening anthology. However, I shall
quote only two which seem to me particularly significant.
The first was published in the Israeli newspaper Haolam
Haze of 8 July 1968. General Dayan stated the following:
“Our fathers got as far as the borders recognized in the
partition plan of 1947. Our generation got as far as the
"borders of 1949. But the generation of the Six Days War
was able to get as far as Suez, Jordan and the Golan
Heights. This is not the end, for beyond the present
cease-fire lines, there will still be new lines beyond the
Jordan, perhaps as far as Lebanon and perhaps also as far
as central Syria.”
96. General Dyan’s statements have been transformed into
deeds by the Israeli attacks which have been incessantly
directed against our territory ever since the attack on Beirut
international airport on 28 December 1968.
97. In this connexion, Israel has unilaterally denounced
the General Armistice Agreement between Lebanon and
Israel of 23 March 1949. However, contrary to the
statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel
in the Assembly, Lebanon considers that Agreement to be
still valid. Article VIII of the Agreement provides, in fact,
that it will remain in force until a peaceful settlement has
been reached and that it can be denounced only with the
agreement of the two parties.
98. In another statement, quoted by the Israeli newspaper
Maariv on 30 April 1968, the Israeli Defence Minister said:
“It may be possible to arrive at peace treaties between
ourselves and the Arab countries, but the Arabs are asking
a very high price. I pray to heaven that that day will never
come.”
99. It is statements of that kind by Israeli officials which
are responsible for the whole trend of domestic and foreign
policy in the Near and Middle East. It is this policy of
aggression and conquest, pursued by Israel with the
arrogance of one confident of impunity, that is adding to
the toll of victims, piling up acts of destruction and
plunging the whole region into violence and insecurity. One
must be blind, or else simply refuse to see, not to realize
that this policy can lead only to a general conflagration
which might destroy the world.
100. Nevertheless, there was recently an exceptional
opportunity of reaching a peaceful and honourable settlement
of the Middle East problems on the basis of Security
Council resolution 242 (1967), dated 22 November 1967.
The two Arab States most directly concerned in the
conflict accepted this international instrument, which had
been unanimously adopted by the Council, and co-operated
loyally with the Secretary-General’s Personal Representative
in an endeavour to find ways and means of implementing it.
The United Arab Republic and Jordan have given
proof of their extreme good faith with regard to the
Security Council’s resolution; and Lebanon can only
reaffirm its solidarity with these States and press for the
full implementation of this text. By adopting a negative
attitude, Israel is deliberately sabotaging all chances of
peace; it continues unremittingly to defy international law
and the decisions of the Assembly. Furthermore, it dares to
demand, as the fruit of its military victory, security for its
boundaries, to the detriment of the security of the other
States of the Middle East.
101. In his address to the General Assembly [1755th
meeting], the president of the United States spoke of
secure and recognized boundaries. However, you are not
unaware of the fact that boundaries secure from threats or
acts of violence are no longer geographical and that no
border today can resist the power of modern weapons.
Secure boundaries are rather of a moral character; what
ensures them is the spirit of peace, the desire for peace and
respect for international law.
102. To preserve peace, to promote the development of
every nation and of every human being, we must endeavour
to overcome evil instincts so that love for peace and justice,
tolerance and the sense of brotherhood may triumph
among men.
103. This is Lebanon’s moral code. Recently, for example,
his Excellency, the President of the Republic of Lebanon,
made the following statement:
“Lebanon's role in the Arab world and in the world at
large is so important and so necessary that any aggression
against our territory and against cur national and our
human mission is an aggression against those values
without which there can be neither life nor progress for
mankind as a whole.
“Any sign of indifference to our just cause an the part
of any State, large or small, condemns that same State
which is guilty of it. History will judge harshly those who
are indifferent or hostile, whoever they may be. And not
only history but also the inexorable march of future
events.”