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.”