27. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on behalf of which I have
the honour of addressing this distinguished gathering today,
sincerely welcomes the election of the President of this General Assembly.
Her election demonstrates the Assembly’s confidence in her
high qualities as well as its regard for her country, Liberia.
28. I would also take this occasion to pay a special tribute
to the late President, His Excellency, Mr. Emilio Arenales,
for the ability and consummate skill with which he presided
over the deliberations of the General Assembly at its
twenty-third session.
29. I should also like to acknowledge the valuable service
of our excellent and highly distinguished Secretary-General
and his associates in the cause of the United Nations and its
accomplishments. His record has been one of able leadership
and dedication.
30. This year witnessed a culmination of the technological
revolution. Man’s eternal quest for the new and unknown
has led him to the highest mountains and the deepest ocean
trenches. This year it has led him across the vacuum of
space to another world. The universe has become more than
ever one unit, and for a moment all mankind were kin. We
must pay the highest tribute to all those brave and creative
people who made this remarkable achievement possible,
and congratulate the countries which invested enormous
human and material resources in this greatest of accomplishments.
31. Notwithstanding man’s remarkable achievements on
his own planet in the fields of technology, education,
communication, science and industry, man has done much
to despoil his own world. Injustices on earth, whether in
the political, economic or social realm, are still widespread.
The gap between the poor and the rich and between
comfort and misery continues to widen. Basic human rights
continue to be violated. People yearning for freedom have
not been enabled to practice their right of self-determination.
Colonial policies, military conquest and occupation
are still practiced. On the part of the international
community a climate of indifference seems to prevail. But
the oppressed cannot be indifferent to wrong. Liberation
movements, particularly in Asia and Africa, have polarized
the masses in their struggle for freedom, independence and
progress. The gallant people of Viet-Nam have paid every
price and made every sacrifice to attain their freedom and
to achieve a unity which would be universally recognized. It
is time they were given that right.
32. For over twenty years the problem of Korea has been
before the United Nations General Assembly. We believe
that more serious consideration should be given to this
important problem. Both parties should be given an equal
hearing, which may contribute to the reunification of that
divided land.
33. The present régime in Rhodesia continues to defy all
General Assembly and Security Council injunctions. We
believe that more effective measures under Chapter VII of
the Charter have to be invoked.
34. One other disturbing question is racial discrimination
in the Republic of South Africa. It goes against human
dignity to look on at the people of South Africa continuing
to suffer as victims of the most inhuman practices.
35. On the soil of the African continent the great nation
of Nigeria is still struggling to defend its unity and
territorial integrity. We hope that the people of Nigeria will
overcome their present difficulties and resume their march
towards progress.
36. The problems and conflicts in which man is involved
are ideological, economic, political and moral. There is,
however, a basic conflict in our present-day world which is
continuous and unending. It is that between man and the
forces of injustice and oppression. Every day men all over
the world sacrifice their lives combating those forces in the
cause of justice. It is tragic that in most conflicts of this
nature the highest body of human organization has found
itself indifferent or impotent to stand on the side of right.
37. The Middle East is one such case. There, certainly as a
result of twenty-one years of indifference, the United
Nations finds itself today more impotent, more entangled,
and more than ever tragically remote from ensuring justice
and peace. For over two years now, the United Nations has
been witnessing an unveiled and ruthless foreign occupation
of the national soil of three Member States of the United
Nations, the result of premeditated armed aggression. For
over two years, substantial parts of Jordan, the United Arab
Republic and Syria have been under occupation. The
occupied areas, including the holiest spot where the world’s
most cherished shrines are located, have undergone physical
destruction and change. Villages in the occupied areas have
been bulldozed and obliterated by the occupying forces.
Masses of people have been dispossessed, expelled from
their homes, arrested, insulted, tortured or terrorized. The
social, cultural and economic life of the civilian population
under occupation has been disrupted and shattered. Israeli
military arrogance has expressed itself in daily shelling and
bombardment against the civilian population beyond the
cease-fire areas. The Israeli authorities have deliberately
defied all efforts of the United Nations to intervene
effectively or usefully on behalf of justice and peace. The
mission of the Secretary-General’s Special Representative,
empowered and authorized by Security Council resolution
242 (1967), was obstructed by Israeli intransigence. This
Security Council resolution attempting to outline a
balanced solution to the problem was ignored and flouted.
The attempt of the permanent members of the Security
Council to study the problem and prevent further deterioration
into all-out war, was bitterly opposed. The rapid
escalation of Israeli demands went along with the escalating
expressions of their determination to retain the occupied
areas and to finalize their annexation. Continuing measures
with the aim of absorbing or “de-Arabizing” the areas
occupied proved beyond any doubt that Israel wanted the
Jarring mission and the procedural dialectic it continued to
propose to be a mere umbrella behind which expansion and
annexation could be conveniently achieved. Professing
peace verbally for propaganda purposes, Israel continued to
sabotage peace on the ground.
38. In the meantime, a part of the international community has,
unfortunately, fallen into the serious error of
concentrating on trying to work out a method for a
political settlement between the Arab States and Israel, but
forgetting the fundamental issue, which violates the Charter
and all rules and norms of present international life. The
issue—the real issue—in the present Middle East crisis is
Israel’s military occupation of the national soil of three
Member States and the Israeli armed aggression which
continues to exist in defiance of world demands and
pronouncements. To insist that the problem lies in the
difficulty of finding a way towards an agreement between
Israel and the Arab States is indeed a grave error which
amounts to an endorsement of the state of aggression which
continues to exist.
39. Yet, on our part, we have not been unaware of the sad
facts in today’s international life. We have also been fully
conscious of our own responsibility towards peace in our
own region. We have, therefore, respected the decision of
the international community and accepted Security Council
resolution [242 (1967)] of 22 November 1967 on the
problem, and sincerely co-operated in the efforts for its
implementation. We have understood it as it was intended
to be: a resolution providing for ending the occupation,
ensuring withdrawal of the occupying forces, and establishing
a just and lasting peace. Israel, on its part, has made
every effort to distort the intent of the resolution and
obstruct its implementation. Allow me to give you some
instances of such attempts.
40. Israel has taken the position of conditioning withdrawal
upon the establishment of so-called agreed boundaries,
thus completely violating the terms and the spirit of
the resolution, and suggesting clearly that it is attempting
to gain Arab territory beyond the lines of 4 June 1967.
What the Foreign Minister of Israel said in this regard in this
hall on 8 October 1968 [1686th meeting], and repeated
several times thereafter, represented a policy destructive to
the hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement. His theory
about withdrawal—a word he never utters—shows clearly
that an establishment of the lines to which withdrawal may
take place is subject to the agreement of Israel, or indeed to
its veto. Since Israel is an occupying force, this means that
it can stay in occupation in the event any proposed
boundaries do not satisfy its territorial designs. This Israeli
position, which is a basic impediment to the achievement of
any progress in the efforts towards peace, has repeatedly
been emphasized and affirmed by Israeli official spokesmen.
41. In this connexion, let me stress that any interpretation
of the November 1967 resolution which confines Israeli
withdrawal to boundaries to be established by an agreement
of the parties introduces language and a meaning alien to
the resolution. It serves to undermine the basic principle of
non-acquisition of territory by armed force. As long as this
position is taken, there is no hope of success in achieving a
peaceful settlement. Likewise, a clear commitment on
complete withdrawal is an essential and indispensable
prerequisite for any constructive future steps on the road to
peace. It is unfortunate that the Israeli position has found
acceptance by some others. The attitude of the United
States, as far as we know, on this most important point has
not made it possible for the talks of the four Powers to bear
fruitful results.
42. I feel I should explain our position, compared with
that of Israel, on one or two other subjects in order to show
how positive our position has been, and how negative and
obstructive has been the Israeli stand. On 24 March 1969 I
sent to Ambassador Gunnar Jarring my written answers to
his questions of 8 March on certain specific matters.
Regarding his question whether Jordan would accept the
establishment of demilitarized zones as a guarantee of the
territorial inviolability and political independence of the
States in the area, I gave the following reply on behalf of
my Government:
“We do not believe that the establishment of demilitarized
zones is a necessity. However, Jordan will not
oppose the establishment of such zones if they are astride
the boundaries.”
And I added:
“In case demilitarized zones are established, Jordan
accepts that such zones be supervised and maintained by
the United Nations.”
43. Against this clear written reply, the answer of 2 April
by the Israeli Foreign Minister, which was then made
known, was vague and evasive. Mr. Eban said:
“The effective guarantee for the territorial inviolability
and political independence of States lies in the strict
observance by the Governments of their treaty obligations.
In the context of peace providing for full respect
for the sovereignty of States and the establishment of
agreed boundaries, other security measures may be
discussed by the contracting Governments.”
44. Here again, on this point, the position of the United
States lacked objectivity. It offered a proposal to establish
exclusively on the Arab side the demilitarized zones
envisaged by the resolution. It suggested that demilitarized
zones should be established consisting of the territory from
which Israel withdrew. If this means anything, it means that
military occupation is to be rewarded.
45. On the question of the “refugees“, the people who
own nearly every bit of the soil on which Israel itself has
been established, and who were driven out by force of
arms, Jordan took a very natural and reasonable position.
We made it clear that a just settlement of the refugee
problem was embodied in paragraph 11 of General Assembly
resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, which, since
its adoption, has been reaffirmed repeatedly at each and
every session of the Assembly. Every year the General
Assembly has emphasized the right of the Palestinian Arabs
to repatriation and compensation. In our reply to
Mr. Jarring we added that if a plan on the basis of that
paragraph were presented to the parties concerned, its
acceptance by the parties and the declaration of their
intention to implement it in good faith, with adequate
guarantees for its full implementation, would make possible
the implementation of the other provisions of resolution of
22 November 1967.
46. Israel’s position was, in effect, that the successive and
repeated United Nations resolutions on the Palestinian
refugees should be disregarded and the problem reduced to
one of international charity.
47. We accepted each and every provision of the Security
Council resolution of 22 November. We agreed to end the
state of belligerency in return for complete withdrawal of
Israeli forces from all territories occupied since 5 June
1967. And in view of our past experience with Israel, and
its renunciation of the Protocol of Lausanne of 12 May
1949 and the four Armistice Agreements it signed the same
year with the Arab States directly concerned, we maintain
that the Security Council should be the guarantor of any
instruments defining the obligations of the parties under
the Security Council resolution. In view of our past
experience with Israel, only such commitments as are
guaranteed by the Security Council can be binding and
irrevocable.
48. So far, all our peaceful efforts have been wasted. That
is because Israel does not seem to be after peace, but after
territory. Every day it becomes clearer that Israel is after
Arab Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Syrian Heights and
substantial parts of the West Bank and Sinai.
49. Jerusalem is the best illustration of this fact. As early
as 4 July 1967 [resolution 2253 (ES-V)] the General
Assembly declared invalid all measures taken by Israel to
annex the Holy City and called upon Israel to rescind them
and to desist forthwith from taking any action which would
alter the status of Jerusalem. This was emphasized time and
again by the General Assembly and the Security Council.
Both organs reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility
of territorial acquisition by military force.
50. However, Israel chose to disregard all those resolutions.
It razed to the ground whole quarters in the Holy
City. It expelled secular as well as religious leaders. It
forcibly evicted hundreds of Arabs to make room for Israeli
immigrants. It established Israeli settlements on Arab lands.
It took further legislative measures to complete its unilateral
and illegal annexation of Jerusalem.
51. The Security Council, in resolution 267 (1969) of
3 July 1969, again censured all those measures in the
strongest terms. But Israel’s attitude did not change. It
continued to disregard the will of the international community
and to defy the authority of the United Nations.
52. On 21 August 1969 the Arabs and Moslems, and the
world at large, were shocked by the news of the burning of
Al Aqsa mosque. The Moslem world reacted with outrage,
pain and indignation. Voices within Israel called for the
rebuilding of the Temple in place of Al Aqsa. The world
today is witnessing a threat to the Holy Places in Jerusalem;
a threat to an historical and cultural heritage; a threat to
monuments of tolerance and faith and to international
peace and security.
53. It was against that background that twenty-five
Moslem countries, Members of the United Nations, asked
for an urgent meeting of the Security Council which last
week adopted another strongly worded resolution
[271 (1969)] against Israel. The twenty-five countries are
meeting today in Morocco at the highest level to consider
the situation.
54. Jordan, with the international community on its side,
considers all Israeli measures in Jerusalem invalid and
illegal. Jerusalem is an integral part of my country. It is part
of the occupied territory from which Israel has been called
upon to withdraw. For many centuries our people have
protected and preserved, with tolerance and the utmost
veneration, the Holy City and its Holy Places. Christians,
Moslems and Jews enjoyed free access to and free worship
in the city of peace. Conflict and prejudice are new to
Jerusalem. Israel has come with an invading and racist
ideology which has disrupted the peace and tolerance of all
the Holy Land in recent decades, in the name of religion,
although completely alien to the noble spirit of all universal
religions. When Israeli withdrawal has been affected, Jerusalem
should regain its peace and tolerance. And we in
Jordan will continue to make every effort to ensure
freedom of access and freedom of worship to all religions
and to all believers in God.
55. It may be asked: what are the motives for Israel’s
present policy? What is Israel’s present strategy designed to
achieve? One can define two main features of Israel’s
present military and political strategy. The first is to oppose
any United Nations or big-Power intervention in the
problem while trying to keep the attention of the United
Nations and world public opinion on a game of deceptive
slogans, procedural tactics and pretensions of readiness to
work for peace without any genuine commitment to the
requirements of peace. In the meantime, while Israel
continues to engage the United Nations in those prolonged
delaying tactics, it moves on as rapidly as it can in changing
the situation on the ground, absorbing the areas under
occupation and preparing to face the world with a new fait
accompli, a new expansion.
56. That is why Israel has systematically avoided commitment
on the substance of the Security Council resolution
[242 (1967)] on complete withdrawal and on the
recognition of the Arab people of Palestine. That is also
why, in the meantime, it has annexed Jordanian Arab
Jerusalem, planted its settlements throughout the occupied
areas and gradually made public its claims to territorial
expansion. With the situation as it is, the slogan of
negotiations advanced by Israel is clearly meaningless.
57. Secondly, Israel’s strategy has been to keep up
continuous daily military attacks against the Arab countries
on the other side of the cease-fire line, making no
distinction between military and civilian targets. Israel has
conducted daily heavy aerial and ground shelling against
densely inhabited towns and villages in various parts of
Jordan, killing civilians, including women and children,
using napalm and other destructive weapons. It has destroyed
vital economic installations, irrigation projects,
canals, bridges and highways in a systematic and vicious
way. The same tactics are applied against the other Arab
countries directly adjacent to the occupied areas. The goal
of these tactics is to put the greatest possible pressure on
those Arab countries in order to force them to surrender
their rights.
58. There can be no other analysis of Israel’s strategy and
policy in the past two years or more. We have ample
evidence of this in what we see now. We have ample
evidence in Israel’s record in the area from the days when
the Zionist nucleus in Palestine was the embryo of the
would-be Israel up to this day. The present policies of Israel
in the existing crisis have to be examined in the context of
years of similar tactics of phased expansion and of diverting
attention within the United Nations while establishing one
fait accompli after another by the use of force and at the
expense of justice and the rights of the people of the area.
59. Futile and unrealistic as this Israeli strategy may be,
even in achieving Israel’s own goals, it is only to be
expected. It is not understandable, however, that some big
Powers, with primary responsibility for international peace
and with vast interests in our area, should support this
Israeli strategy or find themselves powerless before it.
Instead of bringing peace closer, this policy has driven
peace farther away than at any time in the past. I must
refer, in this regard, to the recent delivery by the United
States to Israel of the heaviest types of destructive
weapons, the F-4 Phantom jets after the Skyhawk fighter-bombers,
at a time when Israel occupies vast regions of the
Arab countries, at a time when Israel enjoys superiority in
the air and at a time when its air raids have become the
order of the day. I must say that this measure on the part
of the United States can in no way be justified.
60. Instead of bringing about acquiescence on the part of
the Arabs—surrender of their rights under pressure—this
policy has bred resistance, resentment and a revolutionary
spirit engulfing the whole Arab world. Resistance within
the occupied areas and around them is vigorously growing
and will not end short of on rights of the people
hit by aggression and occupation. The young men and
women in the occupied areas who are offering their lives
every day in resistance are young patriots who love their
country and are willing to die for it. They have decided
their ultimate destination; and, in their march to seek life
through death, no authority can prevent them from
reaching their destination. These gallant young men represent
the spirit of the young in all the Arab countries.
Occupation, injustice and outside encouragement to both
do not breed surrender under the guise of realism but
revolution. The popular explosions in the area and the
increasing identification in the public eye of United States
interests with Israeli aggression reflect that fact.
61. The outcome of the deliberations on the crisis of the
Middle East during this General Assembly session may
determine the future course of events in the Middle East.
No one would claim that the Middle East nowadays enjoys
a peaceful life; yet war has been averted so far only by the
hope that the decisions of the United Nations will be
effective and that the Powers primarily responsible for the
maintenance of peace and security will see to it that a just
and peaceful settlement is reached. Once those two factors
collapse war becomes inevitable. It may possibly be one war
or a series of wars—wars of devastation. The area needs
peace and construction, not war and destruction.
62. The Israeli air raids being daily launched successively
against Arab positions, towns and inhabited areas are
becoming a source of pride to Israel. My country and my
people, partly occupied and partly a target for daily Israeli
shelling and air attacks, are determined not to yield in the
defence of their right. Moreover, a new-born nation is
emerging. It is emerging from amidst the ruins of the past,
from the darkness of the refuge and the exile and from the
ashes in which a few sparks have been left and may cause a
blasting fire. I speak of the children of Palestine.
63. In keeping up their air raids against our lands and our
people, the Israelis declare that they want to give the Arabs
a “lesson“. Indeed, the lessons which may be useful to
Israel, and not to anybody else, should be those given by
similar people in similar conditions where might is dying
every day on the soil of freedom. After all, one eternal fact
remains: it is not force of arms which will determine the
issue, as an Israeli leader once put it, but force of right. The
lesson which Israel, and nobody else, must learn is that its
grasp on the occupied Arab territories will one day fail. One
day its reliance on its armed superiority will prove useless.
One day it will wake up to see that the chance of peace it
was given at a certain stage may not be given again.