Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS
Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1918)
Adoption of the agenda
The situation in the occupied Arab territories:
Letter dated 3 May 1976 from the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/12066)
Held in New York on Monday, 10 May 1976, at 3 p.m.
President: Mr. Louis de GUIRINGAUD (France).
Present: The representatives of the following States: Benin, China, France, Guyana, Italy, Japan, Libyan Arab Republic, Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Sweden, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America.
1. Adoption of the agenda
2. The situation in the occupied Arab territories:
Letter dated 3 May 1976 from the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/12066)
The meeting was called to order at 3.30 p.m.
The agenda was adopted.
The situation in the occupied Arab Territories: Letter dated 3 May 1976 from the Permanent Representative of Egypt to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/12066)
1. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
In accordance with the decisions taken earlier [1916th and 1917th meetings], I shall now invite the representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Saudi Arabia, as well as the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), to participate in the debate without the right to vote.
At the invitation of the President, Mr. Herzog (Israel) and Mr. Terzi (Palestine Liberation Organization) took places at the Security Council table and Mr. Abdel Meguid (Egypt), Mr. Sharaf (Jordan), Mr. Baroody (Saudi Arabia) and Mr. Allaf (Syrian Arab Republic) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.
2. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
In addition, I should like to inform the members of the Council that I have just received letters from the representatives of Kuwait, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen in which they ask to be invited, under rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. Accordingly if I hear no objection I propose, in accordance with the practice of the Council and with the relevant provisions of the Charter, to invite those representatives to participate in the debate without the right to vote.
At the invitation of the President, Mr. Bishara (Kuwait), Mr. Hussen (Somalia), Mr. Medani (Sudan) and Mr. Sallam (Yemen) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.
3. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The first speaker is the representative of Kuwait. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.
4. Mr. BISHARA (Kuwait): Mr. President, we believe that it is very fortunate that the Council is discussing the question of occupation under the Presidency of a descendant of the French Revolution, which contributed to the re-emergence of the most cherished ideals of equality and justice. I shall not elaborate on that; suffice it to mention the name of General de Lafayette. The delegation of Kuwait wishes you the best in your stewardship of the Council's deliberations this month.
5. The question under discussion is not necessarily the revolt of the Palestinian people against foreign rule. It is not the examination of Israeli practices in the occupied territories. It is first and foremost the issue of occupation by Israel of Arab territories. Almost a decade has elapsed since Israel invaded Arab territories in the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights. Scores of resolutions have been adopted condemning this occupation and calling upon Israel to withdraw from Arab territories. Certain steps have been taken outside the purview of the United Nations to ensure that withdrawal. Yet, after this long span of time and despite the continuous calls for withdrawal, the Council finds itself virtually at square one.
6. To say that Israel is defying the international will is an understatement. To refer to the violation by Israel of international law, of the Charter, of the principles and tenets of international documents is indeed a repetitive and almost shabby argument. It is clear from the statements of the Israeli officials inside Israel and outside it—and they are very prolific on this point—that Israel has no intention of pulling out of Arab territories. Israel's obsession with the notion of defensible borders with the concomitant establishment of Jewish settlements on Arab lands, and certainly the absurd revival of historical attachment to the property of others, make the entertainment by Israel of the principle of withdrawal impossible. Israel, by the nature of its structure and the designs of its leaders, is a difficult member of the international community. By its actions in the occupied territories it poses an intractable problem to the United Nations. By its defiance of the Charter and scores of United Nations resolutions it has become an international outcast. There is no need for me to quote Israeli officials abundantly on that point. Suffice it to refer to the soothing—or, rather, unsoothing—instructions of the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Rabin, to the Jewish settlers in the West Bank to grow therein olive trees, which take no less than seven years to bear fruit.
7. What is the present situation, then? It is more than obvious that Israel does not intend to withdraw from Arab territories. Will the international community resign itself to that glaring and obnoxious fact? What will be the fate of many small countries that have placed their faith in the United Nations? Will the dictates of power and force prevail over what justice enjoins? Are we still in the era of the predominance of force? Such rhetorical questions are mooted in every corner, in every gathering—and justifiably so, in the light of Israel's behaviour in the occupied lands. For how long will the Security Council tolerate such an anomalous situation? For how long will the Arabs display patience? For how long will the United Nations accept the scorn with which its resolutions are treated? That is the crux of this debate. It is not a change of heart by the Arabs towards Israel. It is not the Sunday sermons the Security Council is subjected to about the achievements of Israel in the occupied territories. It is not the bizarre dissertations on the Egyptian rule over Gaza or the Jordanian measures in the West Bank prior to 1967.
8. The Israeli representative comes here to pontificate on Israel's record in the occupied territories. We all know that there is a chasm, an ocean, a gulf between pontification and facts. Let me highlight some of Israel's practices since the last debate almost seven weeks ago. Israel deported to Lebanon two Palestinian candidates in the municipal election, in violation of international law. Israel imposed a blackout on the activities of the Palestinians before the elections and prevented the media from reporting thereon. Israel has continued its campaign of expropriating Arab lands and has persisted in establishing Jewish settlements in Arab territories. The municipal election was undoubtedly a demonstration of indignation against the Israeli occupation and, at the same time, a rejection by the Palestinians of Israeli policy. It has confirmed beyond any shadow of doubt the allegiance of the Palestinians to the Palestine Liberation Organization, their sole representative. It should not be forgotten that the Government of Israel indirectly or directly encouraged the militant Jews in their march in the West Bank while it prevented a march by the Arabs to counteract the demonstration of the militant Jews And one should not forget the fact that the march of the Jews was initiated by foreigners for the sake of expansion while the suppressed Arab march was a legitimate response to a provocation by aliens. In other words, Jews marched in a foreign land while Arabs intended to march in their own country. Moreover, the Jewish march was in violation of international law, while the suppressed Arab march was for self defence, a principle supported by the Charter and international law.
9. It is obvious that the difference between the Jewish militants and the Israeli Government has not been on the principle of the establishment of Jewish settlements on Arab land but merely on the timing of the establishment. Both support the establishment of Jewish settlements, but they differ on the style of implementation, on the location of the settlements and on whether these settlements need the prior consent of the Government or not. In other words, they differ on technicalities, but they do not differ on the principle. Both are for the building of Jewish settlements in defiance of Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention.1 The difference between the two is on the application of local Israeli laws, but they are hand in glove in violating international law and defying United Nations resolutions. There is no conflict, then, between the militant Jews and the Government of Israel in their intent to mutilate international law. The argument inside the Israeli Cabinet and Israeli society centres round the authority of the Government, but it does not relate in any respect to international law, which both violate and contend is non-applicable. There is no difference between the moderates and the militants in respect of the violation of international law. The difference lies only in the degree of the violation and the intensity of defiance.
10. These Israeli measures raise three fundamental questions. First, there are the rights of the Palestinians in the West Bank as human beings subjected to foreign occupation. Are they not entitled to preserve the integrity of their land? Are they not part of the people of Palestine, half of which was consigned to the squalid conditions of the refugee camps? Are they not entitled to protection from international organizations? Secondly, what are the chances of peace in the area, in the light of Israeli practices? Does anyone see a light at the end of this bleak tunnel? Will this policy of rubbing salt in the wounds pursued by Israel be helpful in the achievement of peace? Thirdly, is there any more concern or any respect for international agreements? Are these documents meaningless paper which the powerful can tear up, or violate, or destroy any time it suits them to do so? If the answer is yes, what will happen to this world, to this troubled planet, to small countries which have nothing but their spirits and slings with which to defend themselves?
1l. TO ensure respect for international agreements is afundamental aim of the Charter, as the third paragraph of its Preamble indicates. If the Security Council fails to take any action, then the edifice of international law, the Charter and international agreements will be undermined and relegated to limbo. Members of the Council have a dual responsibility. The Charter confers upon them the responsibility to maintain peace and order and to preserve the sanctity of international agreements. They are parties to the fourth Geneva Convention and have pledged their support not only to observe it but to ensure its implementation by others. Any failure to take action in strict implementation of the Convention will be interpreted as abdication of the responsibility conferred upon the members of the Council by the Charter. Hence, in our view, there is no room for accommodating the violation of the Convention by the Israeli Government.
12. Some of those who spoke before me referred to the abuse of the veto power and its role in encouraging Israel in its pursuit of the policy of building Jewish settlements in Arab territories. We believe this is true. If Israel's policy had been opposed by none other than the United States Government, unequivocally and vehemently, Israel could not have dared to continue this policy of defiance. This is a truth with which we daily live.
13. The Council's concern, therefore, is to see that peace prevails in the area. This is the matter that deserves a collective quest, and this is the Council's sole preoccupation. But peace has its own prerequisites. Peace cannot be attained with the establishment of Jewish colonies in Arab lands. Peace cannot be reached when Israeli officials compete with each other in advocating the rights of Jews to live in Arab territories. Peace will not be at hand as long as Israel persists in its defiance of the international community. The chasm, the gulf, the ocean and the gap will remain unbridgeable as long as Israel does not recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. The suspicion, distrust and hate will continue unabated as long as Israel is unwilling to withdraw from the Arab territories. And peace will remain as elusive as ever.
14. It is not hyperbole to suggest that the Middle East is lurching towards more bloodshed. The Palestinians have exhibited proverbial patience in enduring the onslaughts of occupation and in placing their faith in international efforts to restore their rights. No wonder that they have collectively revolted against the brutal manipulation of the invaders. Time, as we know, will not erode their dauntless spirit of resistance against Israeli occupation, and much more ferocious measures on the part of the Palestinians against the Israelis are in store. No one expects any people in the tentacles of occupation to offer caviar or champagne to their invaders. In this sense the Palestinians are not different from any other nation. They borrowed a leaf from the French book, Mr. President. Your countrymen, to a man, rose to rid themselves of the Nazi onslaught. It is your duty to display moral support for their struggle against the forces of evil and occupation, for their struggle is in line with the United Nations resolutions and, indeed, in harmony with the Charter.
15. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I invite the representative of Yemen to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement.
16. Mr. SALLAM (Yemen): Mr. President, at the outset may I congratulate you on behalf of the delegation of the Yemen Arab Republic on your assumption of the Presidency of the Security Council for the month of May, the name of which was derived from the goddess Maia, whose son Hermes was especially worshipped as the god of fertility and whose birth took place on the fourth hour of the fourth day of the month. I therefore hope that this debate will bear fruitful results under your guidance and leadership.
17. It also gives me great pleasure to see Mr. Malik resuming his normal functions in the Council. I personally felt the absence of his eloquence, dynamism and outstanding wit.
18. History books and biblical traditions state that the Philistines settled in Palestine in the twelfth century B.C., long before the arrival of the Israelites. They mention that the two peoples lived together, suffered together and fought hand in hand against the austerities of the invaders until both peoples were merged together through experience and sharing to make up the people of Palestine, the guardians of the holy shrines of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The two peoples lived in peace and tranquillity through the centuries, until Zionism, a strange political ideology, disrupted the peace and harmony which had existed in the area for centuries immemorial.
19. The land of peace is experiencing today one of the most pernicious terrorist campaign in the history of mankind. Boys and girls are pulled by their hair and dragged through the streets. Innocent men, women and children lose their lives every day. Students are beaten, arrested and put in gaols without trial. All these terrorist practices aim at consolidating Zionist settlements, desecrating religious and cultural shrines, confiscating lands, expropriating vast areas, changing their historical and demographic characteristics, exploiting Arab labour, distorting Arab educational programmes and permitting murder, repression and brutal terrorism against Arab citizens.
20. The new uprising of the Palestinian people is a reflection of the accumulated grievances of a population that has been under Zionist occupation for almost a decade. The Palestinian people have waited so long for the peace-loving peoples, the international community and this august Council to free them from the bondage of slavery. But since all have been unable to oblige Israel to comply with United Nations resolutions, it is their prerogative to revolt against their oppressors until they attain their rights to self-determination, sovereignty and independence.
21. The acquisition of land in Palestine has been one of the central aims of the Zionist movement ever since its foundation at the end of the last century. It was to "rescue the land in the land of Israel". The establishment of Israel eliminated many of the obstacles which stood in the way of the Zionist attempts to acquire Arab lands. Land acquisition proceeded more rapidly after the cessation of hostilities at the end of 1948 and after the signing of the armistice agreements between Israel and the neighbouring Arab States.
22. On 28 February 1949, 700 refugees were expelled from the village of Kafr Yosif, where they had taken refuge during the hostilities. Most of them were put in trucks and driven to the front lines where they were forced to cross the border. On 5 June 1949, the Israeli army and police surrounded three Arab villages in Galilee—Hisan, Qatiya and Jauneh—and expelled their inhabitants to the Safad area. On 24 January 1950, an Israeli army unit arrived in the village of Ghabisiya and told the inhabitants that they had to leave their homes by 3 p.m. on 26 January, otherwise they would be expelled across the frontier. At the beginning of February 1951, the inhabitants of 13 Arab villages in Wadi Ara were expelled over the Israeli border. In September 1953, the inhabitants of Umm Al-Farag were expelled from their village, which was blown up immediately afterwards. In October 1956, the Baqqar tribe, which lived in the north of the country, was forced to cross the frontier into Syria. Expulsion and the confiscation of land continued.
23. I need not burden this Council with so many details, but I shall not fail to point out that Israel continued its land expropriation after the 1967 war with even greater rapacity.
24. On 12 January 1968, the Israeli Government expropriated 838 acres of land outside the Old City of Jerusalem to ensure Jewish settlements in the annexed part of the city. An official announcer said that 1,400 housing units were to be built in the coming six months. Four hundred of these were presumably for Arabs whose houses had been levelled inside the Old City. But most of those Arab residents had been forced to leave for the East Bank to find shelter there in tents. The Israeli expropriation of land, like its annexation, then met with disapproval, including that of the United States Government. Only three days after the expropriation, the State Department explicitly announced that it refused to recognize the Israeli measure to "expropriate more Arab territory". It criticized Israel's "unilateral actions affecting the status of Jerusalem" and continued, "we believe that the status of Jerusalem must necessarily be considered in the context of a settlement of all problems arising out of the recent conflict".
25. Despite the disapproval of the United States Government, the Zionists went on to expropriate more and more land. On 18 April 1968, a new order was published to confiscate the site of the nocturnal journey of the prophet Mohammed, known as Al-Buraq, the Magharbah, the Moroccan quarter the Bab Al-Silsilah quarter and the Al-Husor market All those quarters were 100 per cent Arab property. The total area expropriated on that date alone was about 28 acres, which included 700 buildings, 437 shops and 1,048 apartments that sheltered 5,000 Arabs. A girls' school with 300 pupils was closed down and transferred to accommodate the Jewish religious Court of Appeals.
26. All those Israeli measures of expropriation and annexation resulted in an out flow of more than 5,000 Arabs from the City of Jerusalem alone, and thus added to the number of unemployed and the number of Palestinian refugees.
27. The tragedy of the Palestinians continued in spite of the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions—particularly resolution 252 (1968), which I quote here as a reminder. In its paragraph 2, the Council "Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and action taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status''.
In paragraph 3 the Council
"Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem".
28. However, in complete defiance of successive United Nations resolutions, a number of official expropriation measures have been taken. I need not mention the new list of land expropriations and Zionist settlements in Jerusalem, the whole West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights, since these have been enumerated by the representatives who have spoken before me.
29. The Israeli representative, in his statement, which lacked accuracy and cogency, mentioned that the Council was again "listening to the same old cracked record grinding out the inevitable theme of hate" [1917th meeting, para. 64]. I wish to reply to him that the Arabs have never hated Jews. I was personally invited by the Yemeni Jewish community in New York during the Passover holiday. I enjoyed with them our traditional Yemeni hospitality. They served Yemeni dishes, we spoke Arabic, listened to Yemeni music and enjoyed very cordial and amicable talks. I am certain that the Arabs have more in common with the Arab Jews than Mr. Herzog and his fellow Zionists have with them. It is not the same old cracked record of hate as Mr. Herzog pointed out. It is Israel which has alienated the world community.
30. The General Assembly and the Security Council have repeatedly condemned Israel for its violations of the Charter and of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. The International Conference on Human Rights has cited Israel's violations of human rights in the occupied territories. The Human Rights Commission has charged Israel with war crimes. Amnesty International reported that its own investigation disclosed the existence of practices "abhorrent to the conscience of mankind". UNESCO has condemned Israel's archaeological desecration of Jerusalem. The World Health Organization has condemned Israel and threatened to suspend its voting rights because of its refusal to abide by the fourth Geneva Convention,1 a refusal which has also brought public criticism from the International Red Cross. The Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights has repeatedly charged that Israel has ill-treated its own Arab citizens and the inhabitants of the occupied territories in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions, In short, no Government represented at the United Nations has been so universally condemned or has shown greater contempt for world opinion.
31. The representative of Israel likewise stated that his country would continue on its path towards peace. He also pointed out that Israel was prepared to negotiate only on the basis of a recognition of Israel's sovereign rights. We are well aware of the fact that Palestine was partitioned by the General Assembly in 1947 into two independent States, Arab and Jewish, with a special international regime for the city of Jerusalem. Israel has since then gone through different phases of metamorphosis: it has consumed the whole area of Palestine; it has extended its tentacles to bring under its occupation the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights.
32. The Israeli representative wanted the Arabs to recognize Israel, but he did not specify which Israel the Arabs should recognize. Israel has never defined its boundaries and never shown any good will with regard to the recognition of the rights of the indigenous people of Palestine to self-determination, sovereignty and independence.
33. It is therefore imperative that the Security Council face its responsibility under the Charter and request the United States and the Soviet Union to reconvene the Geneva Peace Conference as soon as possible, with the participation of all parties concerned, including the representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
34. If there is good will and a genuine desire for peace, there are always several ways and means of getting out of an impasse. Therefore, the Government of the Yemen Arab Republic believes that the formula of Security Council meetings could be applied to the Geneva Peace Conference, which could likewise convene under the auspices of the United Nations in the presence of all parties concerned.
35. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): Sir, since I am speaking in the Security Council for the first time on this matter, I should like first to extend a hearty welcome to you, an eminent diplomat and politician of France, and to wish you success in discharging the responsible functions which fall to you as President of the Security Council. Your abilities and experience will undoubtedly help us to solve the complicated problems before the Council this May.
36. It gives me great satisfaction to point out the growing and strengthening relations based on mutual understanding, trust and friendship between the Soviet Union and France. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gromyko, stated recently at a luncheon given in his honour by the President of France, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, "We intend to continue to devote particular attention to the development of relations with France." The delegation of the Soviet Union, in this connexion, finds it a source of great satisfaction to be able to refer to the Soviet-French communique on the official visit of the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs to France. In that communique both parties once again stated that they were devoted to the policy of the relaxation of international tension. Indeed, the USSR and France were at the very source of this policy, and i once again both countries have confirmed their resolve to continue on this course, which is in accordance with the interests of all peoples.
37. In this connexion, I should like to point out that the Soviet Union assumes, and has always assumed, that the positive changes which have occurred in the international arena, linked as they are with the vital relaxation in international tension so important to all States and peoples, will help to promote a general atmosphere which will make for the achievement of a sound and just peace throughout the world. However, it should be pointed out that those who are against the relaxation of international tension and the peaceful settlement of disputes adduce the absurd thesis that detente is, as they state, simply a one-way street and merely serves the interest of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. In this connexion, one may well ask what the world situation would be today without the major positive changes which have recently occurred and which fall within the concept of detente or the concept of the relaxation of international tension. What an acute stage could be reached by any international conflict, especially by the conflict in the Middle East, were it not for this detente in international affairs.
38. Those who are against detente have not put forward, nor can they put forward, any reasonable alternative. Essentially, what they are doing is encouraging the revival of the discredited policy of acting from a position of force, which has frequently brought the world to the brink of catastrophe. The pursuit of that policy for a quarter of a century cost mankind very dear. It is the duty of all peoples and Governments not to commit the world once again to being pushed back to the times of the cold war. Our common duty is to ensure that the world should once and for all forget the ominous times of the cold war and resolutely embark on a course of relaxation of international tension, in order to save mankind from the threat of a thermonuclear war.
39. I should like to assure you, Mr. President, that the Soviet delegation is prepared to co-operate with you in all matters dealt with by the Council.
40. Since I have not yet had an opportunity to do so in the Council, I should like to welcome our new colleagues, the representatives of the United States and Japan, Ambassador Scranton and Ambassador Abe, and to wish them success in their careers that, while new for them, are extremely important. I hope that my words of welcome will be communicated to Mr. Scranton.
41. I should like to take this opportunity, since this is the first time I have spoken in the Council after a long absence due to well-known circumstances, to thank heartily the members of the Council, my colleagues, the representatives of the Member States, the members of the Secretariat and also the United States citizens and citizens of other countries, including my long-standing friends and acquaintances, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, Mr. Romulo, and Mr. Baroody, who is well known to all of us, for their very warm and friendly words of sympathy, for their telegrams and letters, for the numerous bouquets, which were sent to me and to my wife when we were being treated in hospital and thereafter, and for their good wishes for our speedy recovery. I should like also to express my deep gratitude to the administration, the doctors and the entire medical staff of the Community Hospital in Glen Cove for their concern and their attention and for the high-calibre medical assistance which was given to us while we were being treated in that hospital after our automobile accident.
42. Turning now to the matter being discussed by the Council, I should like to point out that the Council is once again, for the second time in the last one and a half months, considering a serious situation which has arisen in the Arab territories occupied by Israel.
43. The delegation of the Soviet Union is very pleased to note that in this discussion an active part is being played by the delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine. Its participation in the discussion from the beginning to the end on an equal footing with the delegations of other parties directly concerned is a reflection of the sober position of principle adopted by the United Nations and Security Council in this matter. It is a position principle because it derives from the fundamental decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly on the Middle East, and it is sober and realistic since only the representatives of the PLO the sole legitimate, universally recognized and genuine representatives and spokesmen of the aspirations and interests of the Arab Palestinian people, can speak on behalf of the Arab people of Palestine, who is the main victims of the aggression of Israel and has suffered most from it.
44. From the very thorough and convincing statements which have been made here in the Council by the representatives of Arab countries, it is quite obvious that the aggressors and occupiers, supported and financed by their patrons, have developed a broad campaign of terrorism against the Palestinian people dwelling in the occupied Arab territories. The forces of occupation are making desperate attempts to break the will of the Palestinian people in its struggle for freedom and national independence, including its right to self-determination and the right to create its own State, and are resorting to shootings, arrests, beatings and the persecution of thousands and thousands of peaceful Arab inhabitants. A heinous example of this policy of genocide pursued by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian people was the brutal shooting and beatings committed by the occupation forces against workers taking part in the May Day demonstrations in the largest city in the West Bank of the Jordan, Nablus. These terrorist actions on the part of the occupying forces have further complicated the already tense situation in the Middle East which has been caused by the fact that the conflict has remained unresolved for such a long time as a result of the obstructionist position taken by Israel.
45. For many years now its armed forces have been occupying vast territories of the Arab States. In these territories, a policy of racial discrimination and oppression is being practised against the Arab population. The indigenous inhabitants of the occupied territories are forcibly expelled from their homeland and their homes are being destroyed and razed to the ground in order to clear the way for the creation of settlements for citizens of an alien State who have by force seized these age-old Arab lands. Those who oppose this cruel occupation policy are subjected to arrest, eviction and other repressions. Step by step these territories that have been seized are being incorporated into Israel. All this has created in the Middle East a situation of prolonged and explosive crisis.
46. The duty of the Security Council is to condemn resolutely the violent terrorist actions committed by the occupation forces in the occupied Arab territories and to require that Israel put an end to such actions. This is the minimum the Council should do in the present situation. The members of the Council must at the same time be realistically aware of the fact that such interim action on the part of the Council, although it may be useful in itself, does not solve the basic problem, which is rooted in the fact that the ruling circles in Israel are obstinately refusing to leave the Arab territories they have seized. They are also impeding the implementation by the Arab people of Palestine of its right to create its own State. While the Palestinian Arab people, numbering 3 million, has a right to this equal to that of any other people in the Middle East and any other people in the world, it continues to have the status of people in exile and of refugees, despite the fact that its right to create its own State in the territory of Palestine has now been officially acknowledged and has been confirmed by the world community, represented by the United Nations. The PLO has been broadly recognized as the legitimate representative of that people and enjoys the support of the masses of the people in the territories occupied by Israel.
47. Great attention was devoted to the problem of settling the Middle East conflict at the recent Twenty-fifth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to which I had the honour of being a delegate. This problem was given a very important place in the final report of the Party's Central Committee at the Twenty-fifth Congress, which was made by Comrade Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee. The report outlined the Soviet Union's constructive position of principle on the question of a Middle East settlement. This question, together with a number of other international problems, also occupied a very significant place in the programme adopted by the Congress for the further struggle for peace and international co-operation, for freedom and the independence of peoples. That programme aims to "Concentrate the efforts of peace-loving States on eliminating the remaining seats of war, first and foremost on implementing a just and durable settlement in the Middle East. In connexion with such a settlement the States concerned should examine the question of helping to end the arms race in the Middle East".
48. In its subsequent statement on the Middle East, on 28 April this year [S/12063, annex], the Soviet Government once again drew the attention of the entire world, first and foremost that of the parties directly concerned, to the serious nature of the situation in the Middle East. The statement gave an analysis and an evaluation of the dangerous situation which has arisen in that area and clearly indicated who was responsible for it.
49. It is now quite obvious to everyone that last year's separate transactions, which left out of consideration the key issues in the Middle East settlement and which provided for the creation by a foreign Power of long-term and costly installations in the centre of the Sinai peninsula, not only failed to defuse the situation in the Middle East but further complicated it. This is shown by the bloody events in Lebanon and the equally tragic situation prevailing in the occupied Arab territories.
50. In the statement of the Soviet Government it is emphasized:
"A situation in which the Middle East conflict remains unresolved carries in it the seeds of a new military explosion. This situation means that the aggressor continues with impunity to reap the fruits of its criminal policy while the legitimate interests and rights of the victims of aggression are being flouted. It is clear that there can be neither stability nor tranquillity in the Middle East on such a basis. Failure to settle the conflict has already led four times to military clashes between Israel and the Arab States within comparatively short intervals of time. It would be naive to proceed on the assumption that this could not happen a fifth time. Meanwhile the possible consequences of a new war in the Middle East, including the consequences for the international situation as a whole, are obvious to all."
Further on the same statement says:
"The real aims of those who would like to put off a solution to the problem of a Middle East settlement indefinitely should be clear to any objectively minded observer. The preservation of the existing situation in the Middle East fully accords with their long-term plans of establishing their control over the Middle East region and its enormous oil resources and important strategic positions. It is for this very reason that those who are pursuing aims that have nothing in common with the genuine interests of the peoples of the Middle East are anxious to weaken the Arab States to the maximum possible extent to block their way to progressive social development, to set them against one another and to force them to act in disunity in their actions.
"Who does not know that until recently the arsenal of imperialist policy in the Middle East included one main weapon—Israel's Zionist ruling circles that are pursuing a policy of territorial expansion at the expense of the Arabs. Now, however, the aggressors and their patrons hope to rely in their policy also on some Arab States. But it can confidently be affirmed that in the final count the peoples of the Arab East will frustrate this plan that is hostile to the cause for which the Arabs are struggling, the cause of their independence and freedom."
51. The position of the Soviet Union on the Middle East is principled and consistent. It is based on the fact that the peoples of that region should be complete masters of their fate. They should have an opportunity to live in conditions of independence, freedom and peace. It is precisely for that reason that the Soviet Union is resolutely in favour of a radical political settlement for the Middle East conflict and considers that this is feasible. The discussion of the item on the situation in the Middle East in recent years and the relevant decisions of the Security Council and General Assembly on this matter have revealed the basis on which such a settlement can and should be achieved. This basis consists of three elements which are organically interrelated: first, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories occupied as a result of Israel's aggression in 1967; secondly, meeting the legitimate national demands of the Arab people of Palestine, including its inalienable right to create its own State; and thirdly, international guarantees for the security and inviolability of the borders of all States in the Middle East and their right to independent existence and development.
52. These are the fundamental and interrelated elements pertaining to a settlement in the Middle East. They cannot be separated from each other. They take due account of the legitimate rights of all parties directly concerned, and they constitute a just and realistic basis for a settlement. If both parties to the conflict agree on this basis to commence talks, then the path to a Middle East settlement will be open. The agreement of Israel on the first two points would greatly help in the implementation of the third, with which Israel should also be directly and vitally concerned.
53. There is also proper international machinery which would be of help in the elaboration of the modalities of this agreement, and that is the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East. It is quite obvious to everyone that if the States concerned so desired, the Conference could lead to agreement on all matters pertaining to a settlement. The Soviet Union is in favour of resuming the work of the Geneva Conference with the participation of all parties directly concerned, including the PLO as the representative of the Arab people of Palestine.
54. In its statement of 28 April, the Soviet Government proposed that the work of the Conference be organized in two stages. At the initial stage all the organizational questions could be resolved, including the procedure according to which concrete aspects of the settlement should be examined and the possibility of setting up appropriate working groups and bodies and so on. This stage would obviously not last a long time. Immediately thereafter the Conference could proceed to tackle its main task, that is, finding a solution to the essential problems of a settlement. Of course, during the work of both those stages of the Conference, the representatives of the PLO should participate on an equal basis.
55. In expressing its ideas regarding the need to take action to reach a settlement of the Middle East conflict, the Soviet Government at the same time officially and convincingly stated that the Soviet Union is not seeking any advantages or gains for itself in the Middle East. Neither in the Middle East nor in any other part of the world is it seeking either military bases or any right to exploit the natural resources of the region or any opportunity to influence the internal development of the States concerned. Loyal to the ideal solidarity with peoples struggling for their liberty a social progress, the Soviet Union has unflagging supported and will continue to support firmly the in position of the Arab States and peoples. Peace and tranquillity in the Middle East are the sincere aim of the policies of the Soviet Union in that area.
56. The delegation of the Soviet Union consider that the Security Council can and should make its own weighty contribution to the achievement of a just and-lasting peace in the Middle East.
57. In conclusion, the Soviet delegation feels that must express its views on the two following matters which have been touched upon during the present debate.
58. First, the representative of Israel, in the concluding portion of his statement, emphasized that his country aspired to peace and was prepared to conduct negotiations on a peace settlement in the Middle East We are deeply convinced that if he had added that his country was prepared to depart from Arab lands and to return to their legitimate owners the territories that were seized, and also to recognize the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, the whole question of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East could be removed from the present deadlock and speedily solved.
59. The Soviet Union for its part believes, as I have already stated, that a Middle East settlement should be based on three organically integrated principles, which I take the liberty of repeating once again: withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories occupied by Israel as a result of its aggression in 1967, recognition and implementation of the inalienable national rights of the Arab people of Palestine, and international guarantees for the security and inviolability of the Borders of all countries in the Middle East and the right of those countries to an independent existence and development. Regarding guarantees, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Comrade Brezhnev, made the following statement at the twenty-fifth Party Congress:
"We are prepared to participate in international guarantees of the security and inviolability of the frontiers of all Middle East countries either within the framework of the United Nations or on some other basis. Incidentally, it is our opinion that Britain and France, too, could participate in such guarantees along with the Soviet Union and the United States. This would only help matters."
60. Secondly, the question of terrorism has been touched upon in this debate, and an attempt has been made to shift the blame to the Arab side. But the facts of the present situation show very convincingly that the Zionist party not only preaches but in fact practises terrorism. Zionism has made terrorism part of its armament. We all know, for example, about the extremist Zionist organizations that exist in the host country, organizations that we are fully entitled to call Fascist Zionist mafia. Their main aim is to carry out acts of terrorism against foreign diplomats accredited to the United Nations. There are also forces behind those mafia who are financing and encouraging their terrorist activities. Each of their misdeeds is broadly advertised and is used as propaganda by all the mass information media in the host country. Is not shooting at the buildings of the Soviet Mission to the United Nations four times to be regarded as terrorism on the part of Zionist extremists? However, none of the criminals who perpetrated these misdeeds has been punished. Recently, on the night of 2 to 3 April, the Soviet Mission was fined on with a high-calibre weapon. In the building at that time were the representative of the Soviet Union and his wife, who had only recently suffered a very severe automobile accident. Shooting at a building in which a foreign ambassador lives can only be regarded as a direct attempt on the life of an ambassador by terrorists.
61. As many well know, an eminent statesman and politician of ancient Rome, Cicero—our colleague Ambassador Vinci can confirm this—resolutely condemned any attempts against foreign ambassadors. He wrote:
"It is a fearful crime to make an attempt on the life of an ambassador and to incite one's slaves to kill a guest. How much impudence and infamy is in such a design!"
62. At the same time, the Zionists not only encourage these misdeeds but carry them out themselves. They organize hostile demonstrations before the premises of the missions of United Nations Member States, and the persons in those demonstrations utter demands not to give any peace to diplomats. When they demonstrate before our Mission they brandish placards calling for the shedding of Russian blood in the streets of New York, and so on. Quite recently, on 2 May, there was a hostile demonstration whose main purpose was to intervene in the internal affairs of other States.
It was a demonstration of hostility against the United Nations because the Organization had condemned Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. There participated in that demonstration very important officials: senators, congressmen, the Governor of the State, the Mayor of New York and others. That demonstration, too, was characterized by such criminal slogans as I have described. In the first place, this acts as a culture for Zionist terrorism, and in the second place, it is evidence of the fact that the federal and local authorities in the host country not only tolerate but condone and thereby encourage the criminal activities of the terrorist Zionist groups of this fascist hue.
63. Is not the telegram received by the representative of the Soviet Union on 3 May from the Zionist mafia which calls itself the Jewish Defense League a terrorist threat? That telegram contains threats to continue planting bombs and to proceed to kidnap or kill Soviet diplomats. It gives the precise address of this criminal organization, which has openly declared its villainous intention to carry out attempts against the lives of foreign diplomats: 1133 Broadway, New York. We have informed the United States Mission about this, and we hope it will reply and take the proper steps.
64. Finally, can we not regard as a threat of terrorism the article published by the head of this mafia, this "holy man" Rabbi Kahane? I shall now read from that article:
"After all, what would be the consequences of a fatal attack on Soviet Ambassador Yakov Malik? The thought is a chilling one, especially when all sides know that one Jewish extremist simply cannot be stopped if he does not fear the consequences."
This is where the root of the evil can be found. The terrorists do not fear the consequences in this country. They act with impunity. The authorities allow them to do anything.
65. At the end of this article by the head of this group of Zionist terrorists, again the address is given: Room 310, 1133 Broadway, New York. Consequently, the address of these ill intentioned persons who have openly threatened to kill and kidnap foreign diplomats is well known to the American authorities. However, no steps have been taken against these criminal elements. At the same time, it is quite clear to everyone that by their terrorist actions and threats the Zionist extremists are degrading America and its wonderful people.
66. All this gives us every reason to state officially in the Security Council that Zionism has made terrorism the main weapon in its arsenal. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this: that Zionism has turned into a terrorist organization. It has chosen murder, kidnapping, bombing and shooting at the buildings of diplomatic missions as to the United Nations its main weapon, with the direct condonation, almost bordering on encouragement, of the official authorities of the host country. The United Nations is entitled to demand that the administration of the host country take all necessary steps to restrain these evil-doers and to ensure that all necessary conditions prevail in New York for the United Nations Headquarters to continue to be located there and to guarantee the security of the missions of Member States and their staffs.
67. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I thank Ambassador Malik, the representative of the Soviet Union, for his kind words with regard to the presidency. I was particularly moved by his words speaker.
because, like him, I rejoice at the positive results of the visit to France of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, results that are important to both our countries but also for the consolidation of detente and for peace throughout the world. That is what inspires the policy of France as well as that of the Soviet Union.
68. Mr. LAI Ya-li (China) (translation from Chinese): Of late, the Israeli Zionists have intensified their wanton persecution and brutal repression of the Arab population in the occupied territories. They are forcibly seizing land belonging to the Arab people, ruthlessly killing innocent Palestinian and other Arab people there for the purpose of changing the structure of the occupied territories by various means in an attempt to perpetuate their occupation of the Arab territories. This has been fully exposed by the host of irrefutable facts enumerated by the representatives of Egypt, other Arab countries and the Palestine Liberation Organization. It is only natural that the perverted acts and atrocities committed by the Israeli Zionists have aroused the strong indignation and firm resistance of the entire Palestinian and other Arab peoples. The Chinese delegation expresses great indignation and sternly condemns the series of fresh crimes committed by the Israeli Zionists, and we deeply sympathize with and support the valiant struggles of the people in the occupied territories who fear no sacrifices. We hold that the Security Council should adopt a resolution strongly condemning the Israeli Zionists' atrocities and voicing firm support,for the just struggle of the Arab people in the occupied territories.
69. It is our consistent view that the question of the Israeli occupied territories is an integral part of the whole Middle East question, and in the final analysis the dire sufferings of the Arab and Palestinian people in the occupied territories are caused by the rivalry between the super-Powers for hegemony in this region. Therefore, it is evident that a fundamental solution of the question of the occupied territories lies in the elimination of super-Power interference, the restoration of the national rights of the Palestinian people and the complete withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied Arab territories. All this can be realized only by relying on the close unity of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples themselves in waging persistent struggles against the common enemy with the support of the people of the whole world.
70. The current situation in the Middle East is excellent! Beset with troubles both at home and abroad, Israeli zionism has been landed in unprecedented isolation. The true colours of the super-Powers have been further exposed in their aggression and their contention for hegemony in this region, and they are being discredited. The just struggles of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples are deepening. Recently the Egyptian Government and people have achieved another major victory in their struggle against aggression and hegemonism, setting a brilliant example for the people of the third world. It can be seen the Palestinian and other Arab peoples are experiencing a new awakening, opening up new vistas for the struggle in the Middle East against aggression and hegemonism. Their just struggle is an important component of the struggles of the people of the entire third world. The Chinese Government and people will, as always, firmly support the Palestinian and other Arab peoples in their just struggle against Israeli Zionist aggression and against super-Power interference, control and subversion, and we are deeply convinced that final victory certainly belongs to the Arab and Palestinian peoples who persevere in unity and struggle.
71. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French], The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic has asked to be allowed to speak in exercise of his right of reply. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.
72. Mr. ALLAF (Syrian Arab Republic): Instead of addressing himself to the serious subject under consideration, the representative of the Zionist regime in his statement at the last meeting resorted, as usual to dilatory remarks and irrelevant matters in an attempt to avoid the real issue, which is the tragic situation and the suffering of the Arab population in the territories under Israel's illegal occupation. As a matter of fact, the representative of Israel allotted one third of his statement to Lebanon and the second third to purely inter-Arab relations, and only managed in what remained of his statement to repeat for the hundredth time the falsifications, lies and distorted facts on which, the Israeli representative is an authority, twisting the truth out of shape beyond any recognition.
73 . For my part, I shall not be dragged into discussing alien subjects or irrelevant matters. I shall rather confine myself to setting right some of the numerous inaccuracies and distortions uttered by the Zionist representative.
74. The representative of Israel showed his pride in the record of his regime in the West Bank. He was; proud that under Israeli occupation there had been "a real growth in the gross national product in both! territories" — meaning the West Bank and Gaza— "of an average of 18 per cent per annum" [1917th meeting? para. 99]. What a magnificent way towards progress' and development! But was that not always the pretext. of colonialists and alien invaders who tried to justify their domination of other peoples and territories by, claiming for themselves the role of "civilizers" and self-appointed prophets for progress and prosperity? Yet, despite the fact that the freedom and sovereignty, of peoples can never be the price of their development and prosperity, let me remind the representative of the Zionist regime that, before playing the role of, messenger for development and progress, his regime would be better advised to try to remedy its own economic failure and bankruptcy.
75. Let me draw his attention to what the Governor of the Bank of Israel declared less than two weeks ago before the Financial Committee of the Knesset as reported in Yediot Aharonot on 26 April, concerning Israel's total economic dependence on the United States. After referring to the masked unemployment in Israel, which is reflected in the decrease in labour productivity and the systematic devaluation of the Israeli pound, he declared that the amount of Israel's I external debt at the end of 1976 will reach $9 billion, with an annual average debt servicing charge of $450 million per year. So, before raising the standard of living of the Palestinian people at the cost of their independence, freedom and human dignity, how about curing Israel's own dependence and non-viability?
76. Another falsehood constantly repeated by the Zionist representative is the Arabs' alleged refusal of peace. The Israeli representative should be the last person to mention "sincerity" so far as peaceful efforts are concerned. Everyone is aware of the shameful record of Israel in defying United Nations resolutions, in violating the Charter of the United Nations and principles of international law and in blocking every single international effort for peace. One has only to recall Ambassador Jarring's efforts, the Rogers plan, the African leaders' mediation, the Geneva Conference, the Secretary-General's initiatives and many other steps in order to realize how sincere Israel is in its alleged desire for peace.
77. The Zionist representative always dares to mention Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) as if Israel had ever accepted or implemented those two resolutions. The Geneva Conference was supposed to be meeting on the basis of those two resolutions in order to try to reach a comprehensive settlement. Who is blocking the convening of that Conference? Is it not those who want to solve the Palestinian question in the absence of the people of Palestine?
78. The Zionist representative unashamedly claims that the core of the problem "is- not a question of territory and is not a question of Palestinians" [ibid., para. 105]. What, then, is the core of the problem if it is not the territory Israel occupies and the people it has been oppressing for three decades?
79. The representative of Israel does not even try any more to mask the expansionist nature of his regime. He says flatly that
"... the Arab nation has realized its sovereignty in 20 States comprising 100 million people in 4.5 million square miles, with vast resources. The issue therefore is not whether the world will come to terms with Arab nationalism. The question is at what point Arab nationalism, with its prodigious glut of advantage, wealth and opportunity, will come to terms with the modest but equal rights of another Middle Eastern nation to pursue its life in security and peace." [Ibid, para. 106.]
And it is amazing that in that quotation the Israeli representative considers Israel and the world to be on one side and the Arab countries on the other. He is saying the question is not whether the world will come to terms with Arab nationalism, but the question is whether Arab nationalism will come to terms not with the world but with another Middle Eastern nation. The answer is that this is not another Middle Eastern nation; it does not try to be another Middle Eastern nation. It is an alien, expansionist settler regime which is trying to implant itself by force in the heart of the Arab territory against the will of the people of the territory and of the States in the region.
80. Thus, in the opinion of the Israeli representative, the Arab nation should surrender the Arab territories in Palestine just because it has four and a half million square miles, and the Arab nation should surrender the rights of 3 million Palestinians just because it comprises, as he said, a hundred million people. Again, what silly and stupid logic! If the question is one of territorial size or of population figures, how about directing the greedy Zionist designs towards the United States, for example, which is incomparably larger in population and in the size of its territory than all 20 Arab States put together?
81. The Israeli representative has also repeatedly said that Israel has declared its readiness to end the state of war and that no answer has been forthcoming from the Arab countries. But the mere existence of Israeli soldiers on Arab territory is an act of war; military occupation is an aggression and an act of war. So how dare Israel say that it sincerely wants to end the state of war, when it refuses to withdraw from any part of the Arab territory?
82. I do not want to take the Council's precious time in answering the rest of the falsifications in the Israeli representative's statement. I should like only to say that we have been accustomed to hearing, time and again, the same arguments and the same lies from that representative. If Israel really is sincere in wanting peace, it has to recognize that peace cannot be established in the region unless every inch of the occupied Arab territory is liberated and unless every single Palestinian is able to exercise his inalienable national rights.
83. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I call on the representative of the United States of America, who has asked to speak in exercise of his right of reply.
84. Mr. BENNETT (United States of America): My brief words are not really in the nature of a right of reply, but are rather a comment with respect to some of the statements that the Soviet representative has made.
85. I am sure that we are all very glad that Ambassador Malik has returned to this chamber in full vigour, and he has been gracious enough to express his appreciation for the care and treatment that he and his wife have received after an unfortunate accident, when we all suffered the pain of knowing that he was in the hospital.
86. But I regret to say that it seems to me that this afternoon his vigour has carried him to some hyperbole. Some of the statements in the latter part of his remarks are baseless, and surely he knows they are. The Soviet representative must surely know from both the private and the public communications that have passed between our two Governments what the situation is with respect to recent disgraceful and outrageous actions against the Soviet Mission and its personnel.
87. Now, the results are not being obtained as quickly as the Soviet representative would like, or indeed, may I say, as quickly as my own Government would like. But we do not plan to change our system of law and orderly justice and procedure, even if that justice and procedure is sometimes rather slow. But to charge United States officials with complicity in and encouragement of activities which we all deplore, and which the Soviet representative has described as terroristic, is, I submit, a statement unworthy of the representative of a major Power.
88. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I now call upon the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, who has asked to speak in exercise of his right of reply.
89. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): I cannot agree with the assertion of the United States representative that there was any hyperbole in my statement. No, my statement contained facts, and only facts. The fact that the premises of the Soviet Mission have been fired at four times is not hyperbole; it is not something we have invented: it is genuine fact. The numerous demonstrations which have been held opposite the Soviet Mission, with their criminal slogans that Russian blood should be shed in New York streets and that Soviet diplomats should be killed, are not hyperbole; they are facts and are well known to you. It seems that no mission has sent you as many notes as ours has. And then there is the telegram from the Zionist organization, which can only be described as a Fascist mafia, with threats not only to explode bombs but also to proceed to kidnap and kill Soviet diplomats. This telegram is not hyperbole. I sent a copy to the United States Mission, to Ambassador Scranton. And, finally, the article by the leader of that mafia, that "holy man", Rabbi Kahane, containing a threat to attack Ambassador Malik is not hyperbole or exaggeration; it is a fact. The text of that article, which emphasizes the place and refers to attacks against Malik, were also transmitted to Ambassador Scranton. Apparently you read it also. So where is the hyperbole in all this? Where is the exaggeration? These are facts
90. How many attacks have there been against diplomatic staff in the Soviet Mission in recent year? Not a single one of the attackers has been punished, despite the fact that they were seized and turned over to the police. You refer to your legislation, which requires that foreign diplomats come to court and say "That is the person who attacked me" and "That is the person who insulted me and beat me up". But diplomats are not obliged to enter a court in the host country, and we shall not go to your courts. We gave over these miscreants to the police. These are the people, we said, who had attacked us and beaten us up. And the police took them from our hands into their hands, but the court demanded evidence. What evidence is needed? What sort of legislation is this? Legislation which shields and thus encourages criminal acts.
91. The numerous demonstrations held in the streets of New York, with the participation of public officials the Mayor of the city, the State Governor, congressmen and senators; the shouting of criminal slogans, with demands and threats to kidnap and to kill foreign diplomats, to bomb our Mission, and so on and so forth: is not this encouragement and creation of a favourable climate for the Zionist extremists to feel they can act with impunity?
92. Here is the telegram from the League I have mentioned and the article by Rabbi Kahane. I can give them to you so that you may see that these are facts and not hyperbole or inventions.
93. You also referred to democracy and to democratic legislation, but what is democracy when criminals are allowed to attack people, to kill them or kidnap them? This is not democracy, this is gangsterism. Therefore we are entitled to protest against it and to require through the United Nations that your Government take steps to create normal working conditions for both the United Nations and the missions attached to it, because these attacks and threats by the Zionist extremists cause suffering not only to the Mission of the Soviet Union but also to the missions of many other countries as well. I think there must be a few dozen of them—many have been complaining about such attacks on the part of various extremist groups in New York. Therefore we are entitled to demand that official steps be taken with regard to these criminal elements.