Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

English (pdf) ||Arabic||Chinese||Français||Русский||Español||

See also: UN DPI Multimedia (Ref: 024-32-33)
Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS


        Security Council
22 March 1968




1403rd MEETING: 21/22 March 1968

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1403)

Adoption of the agenda

The situation in the Middle East:
(a) Letter dated 21 March 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8484);
(b) Letter dated 21 March 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Israel addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8486)




Held in New York on Thursday, 21 March 1968, at 9.30 p.m.

President: Mr. Ousmane Soce DIOP (Senegal).

Present: The representatives of the following States:
Algeria, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Hungary, India, Pakistan, Paraguay, Senegal, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great n and Northern Ireland and United States of America.

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

The situation in the Middle East:

(a) Letter dated 21 March 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8484);
(b) Letter dated 21 March 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Israel addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8486)

1. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): In view of the limited number of places available at the Council table, and in accordance with the practice sometimes followed by this Council, I propose to invite the representatives of the two countries that requested the convening of the Security Council on this occasion to take places at the Council table for the duration of the discussion on the question before us and I also propose to invite the United Arab Republic Iraq, Morocco and Syria to take the places reserved for then at the sides at the Council chamber, on the understanding that when they wish to speak they will be invited to take places at the Council table.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. H. El-Farra
(Jordan) and Mr. Y. Tekoah (Israel) took places at the Council table, and Mr. M, A. El Kony (United Arab Republic), Mr. A. Pachachi (Iraq), Mr. A. T. Benhima (Morocco) and Mr. G. J. Tomeh (Syria) took the places reerved for them.

2. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): We shall now resume consideration of the item on our agenda. I call upon the first speaker on my list, the representative of the United Kingdom.

3. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): I have inten-tionally asked to speak late in this debate. I shall certainly not compete with others in condemnation and strong feeling, well justified as I realize that feeling to be. Nor shall I repeat what others have said. I should like to speak shortly not only on the dangers which have brought us here today, but also because I trust that even today we shall not neglect to think of the future. Even under the cloud of these dreadful events, we must not lose sight of the hope of progress towards a settlement.

4. Uppermost in the minds of all of us since news from the Jordan valley came to us through the night and this morning must be our realization that, as always, it is the innocent who suffer first, and it is the innocent who suffer most. We learn yet again the lesson of the evils of violence. Violence leaves in its trail a mounting toll of death and anguish and suffering and bitter dispute and bloody deadlock.

5. Surely our first demand must be for an end to violence-all violence. For we know that if violence is to continue there can be no good prospect for the future, no prospect except a further descent deep into chaos and conflict.

6. I trust that the hope of the future will not be destroyed by the hate and the blood of the past.

7. It was perfectly clear what had to be done today, It was essential this morning to call immediately for a return to the cease-fire line of June. My Government made that public call at once. No one of us could have any reservation about that. We have consistently urged restraint and strict observance of the cease-fire on both sides. Early this morning we called upon Israel forces to withdraw immedi-ately to their own side of the cease-fire line. But that is not enough. The return to the cease-fire line Of June 1967-this is what I would wish to emphasize-must lead on to a return to resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.

8. Certainly our first duty must be to make it clear that those who break the United Nations cease-fire forfeit international sympathy and support. We deplore the acts of violence which preceded today's attack. We deplore the latest deliberate and most serious breach of the cease-fire, and we agree with those members of the Council who have condemned the wrong practice of retaliation. Especially we deplore resort to violence at this time when all of us have hoped that United Nations action which we put in train in this Council would lead to progress towards settlement in peace.

9. Violence solves nothing. Violence does not prevent violence. Violence breeds more violence.

10. At the same time, let us be clear in our minds that we stand by our resolution of 22 November 1967, the whole resolution. We are convinced that there is no other course to follow if there is to be any hope at all of establishing the secure settlement and permanent peace which must be our overriding aim.

11. This is no time to go over the developments since we unanimously took our decision here in this Council on 22 November 1967. We have no report yet from Mr. Gunnar Jarring, but the respect and admiration of all sides for his patience and persistence have increased as we have learned of his indefatigable endeavors. Progress has obviously been slow and difficult. It has been bedeviled by continued suspicion and distrust. Words have become not a means of conciliation but a barrier against agreement. But we have also been assured that the provisions of the resolution we unanimously passed last November are accepted-that is the most striking fact: the resolution has been accepted by everyone mainly concerned. What is more, no one believes that there is any other way to go. We are all convinced, I am sure, that what we did together in November was right. The road ahead of us is clear. On that we are aft agreed. And what has happened since November makes it not less necessary but far more necessary to support the efforts of the Secretary-General's special representative and to insist that the framework for a settlement which we drew up together four months ago must be respected and carried out-yes, carried out completely. The Council is, I am sure, in no mood to accept prevarication or obstruction. We are not prepared to countenance or condone any violent attack of the kind of which we learned when we awoke today. Having made that perfectly plain we pray that we can turn from the cease-fire to the constructive work to which we are all committed. It is that future task on which we must concentrate and from which we must insist that there be no diversion, no going back.

12. I think tonight, as I have been thinking all day, of Mr. Gunnar Jarring. All his patient work has been put in jeopardy. Good sense and goodwill have suffered a defeat. Conciliation must seem to him tonight much further away. The forces of hate threaten to take over. But it could be, surely, that tonight we would all draw back from the precipice of disaster. Perhaps we could suddenly see tonight the futility of violence. Perhaps in spite of words of fury there could be a new start towards sanity.

13. I trust that whatever we say and do in this debate we shall keep uppermost in our minds the need not to block but to open the way for the Secretary-General's representative to go forward steadily and surely to eventual success.

14. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I call on the representative of the United Arab Republic.

15. Mr. EL KONY (United Arab Republic): The reason for our presence here today is still another act of Israel banditry in the area. The facts are clear as elaborated by representative of Jordan. Israel has once again resorted to military might to subdue the legitimate discontent of the indigenous Arab population in the territories occupied by it as a result of the June 1967 aggression. Israel has invoked as a pretext for this unwarranted act of aggression on Jordan the so-called terrorist activities emanating from that country. The official statements of Israel spokesmen time and again refer to those activities, seemingly in the belief that if this term is used repeatedly international public opinion will eventually accept this allegation as fact. But after all no one can be blind to the reality of the situation. It should be constantly recalled and repeatedly underlined that Israel is still occupying vast areas of territories belonging to Arab States. This is the fact and the real cause for the present serious situation in the Middle East.

16. Today's premeditated Israel attack on the east bank of Jordan is certainly bound to aggravate further the already inflammable situation existing in the area.

17. I have had occasion in a series of communications to this organ as well as to the General Assembly to inform the membership of the United Nations of the multitude of acts of intimidation and provocation practiced by the Israel occupying forces in the Arab territories. I do not intend to repeat the contents of those communications. Suffice it in the present context to recapitulate certain aspects of Israel treatment of the civilian population since its aggression of 5 June.

18. On 22 June, while the General Assembly was convened at its fifth emergency special session to discuss the Israel aggression against the Arab countries, Israel began to intensify the expelling of the civilian population by forcing, hundreds of Arabs to leave their homes. An Israel spokesman arrogantly stated that this figure was to be completed when, by the end of that day, 2,000 Palestinians would leave and that they would continue to expel several thousand Arabs, on the basis of 1,000 per day. By now hundreds of thousands have taken refuge in other Arab lands and still there is no end in sight.

19. On several occasions the Security Council was informed that Israel was continuing its policy of repression against the civilian Arab population of the occupied territories, and was conducting an organized campaign of killing and massacre with a view to spreading havoc and terror among them. The sole purpose seems to be none other than to bring about a fait accompli-in other words, to reduce the number of Palestinians in the Arab territories to the lowest possible figure. Such aggression and violation of the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, as well as human and fundamental freedoms of peoples, especially the refugees who are in the custody of the United Nations, can neither be condoned nor ignored.

20. I should like to refer equally to the policy of harassment and of looting of property which is being practiced by Israel authorities and has been extended to UNRWA properties. Various United Nations reports contained evidence that such acts as arrest, deportation, physical torture, looting, humiliation and plundering, as well as demolition of houses, have been committed by Israel authorities in the occupied territories.

21. The report of Mr. Gussing, as well as the other reports of the International Red Cross and of the Commissioner--General of UNRWA, and the additional information pro-vided during the twenty-second session of the General Assembly easily substantiate this information.

22. More recently, information has been widely circulating about the intensification of the cruel practices by the Israel authorities in the Arab occupied territories. Imposition of curfews has been resorted to more and more often with no provision whatsoever for the distribution of food or water during the extraordinary long hours of the curfews.

23. On 26 January 1968, an eye witness account was published in The Guardian of Manchester, as already mentioned by the representative of Algeria [1402nd meet-ing]. The author of this report stressed two significant conclusions: first, that the measures which the Israel authorities are taking against the civilian population in the Arab occupied territories constitute utter disregard for the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1949 for the protection of civilian persons in time of war; and secondly, that Nazi Germany during the Second World War never treated prisoners of war as harshly as the Israelis are treating the Arabs of the occupied territories-and the majority of these Arabs are women and children.

24. The information has been confirmed by subsequent reports published about the increasing Israel acts of intimidation: terror, collective punishment, etc., pursued against the civilian population.

25. In view of those reports, it could hardly be expected that the inhabitants of these areas would resign themselves to this fate, accept it meekly, letting their fellow men, women and children suffer this cruel treatment.

26. In all fairness, the spontaneous reaction, sometimes at a great cost of life and material, sacrifice by the Arab Population of the occupied territories, cannot be viewed but with sympathy and understanding. If nothing else, it constitutes the manifestation of the collective will of popular resistance against the presence of an aggressor.

27. In other parts of the world, and should I also say in contemporary history, acts of national resistance against foreign domination have been hailed, and even assisted by the members of the international community, as the legitimate desire of people to liberate themselves from the yoke of the oppressor. The European peoples in countries occupied by the Nazis rose in heroic resistance to put an end to the rule of Nazi domination. These uprisings are still remembered as acts of extreme bravery and patriotism. Should this not also be the case where the Arab population, whether on the west bank of the Jordan River, the Golan Heights or in the Gaza Strip, or in Sinai, resist the Israel oppressor?

28. In this connection, may I be allowed to remind the members of the Council that this movement of resistance by the Arab population is solely aimed at achieving the worthy cause of liberating their transgressed land, while on the other hand, the acts of butchery and massacres committed by the Israelis concentrate on implementing the Zionist policy of expansion by prolonging their occupation of Arab territories.

29. I submit that the Arab peoples in the occupied territories are just as entitled as all other oppressed peoples to struggle for freedom. An eminent statesman and a world leader, General de Gaulle, describes the resistance of the Arab people in the occupied territories in the following way:

"After attacking, in six days of combat, Israel took possession of the objectives it wanted to acquire. Now it is setting up, on the territories it has taken, the occupation that cannot take place without oppression, repression, deportation, and there is springing up against it a resistance which in its turn Israel qualifies as terrorism."

30. To sum up, Israel has just perpetrated another gross violation of the cease-fire resolutions which cannot be justified under the provisions of the United Nations Charter, which clearly proscribes and condemns not only the actual use of force, but even the threat to use it.

31. What we are confronted with now is a premeditated act of large-scale military reprisal committed in defiance of the Charter and of previous Security Council decisions. Suffice it to mention Security Council resolution 228 (1966) of 25 November 1966, by which the Council resolved to censure Israel for its action and stated the following:

"Emphasizes to Israel that actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repetition of such acts."

32. Israel has nevertheless repeated such an act and it is now up to this important body to discharge its responsibilities and apply the full power of Chapter VII in accordance with its previous decisions regarding the policy of military reprisals.

33. The responsibility is grave, but the responsibility of those who condone the continuation of this situation is graver, especially if and when they are reluctant to condemn the defiance by the Israelis of the basic principles of the United Nations Charter.

34. To condemn Israel's criminal actions would not be adequate. Israel prides itself on its long list of condem-nations. What is necessary now is to consider the further steps envisaged in the Charter which the Council referred to in resolution 228 (1966). The Charter meticulously laid down in no ambiguous terms the modalities for carrying out the Council's responsibilities with respect to acts of aggression. Articles 41 and 42 give ample latitude for the Security Council to exercise its authority. It is high time to face the aggressor and uphold the principles of the Charter.

35. We have proclaimed our peaceful intentions, but let there be no mistake: peace does not mean surrender, nor does it mean the legalization of a fait accompli. The Arab people are determined to recover every inch of their homeland whatever the cost, whatever the sacrifice.

36. Let us hope that peace will be achieved, for in peace we firmly believe, and for peace we shall earnestly endeavor.

37. Mr. IGNATIEFF (Canada): A tenuous peace in a troubled area, based on cease-fire arrangements stemming from resolutions of this Council, has been roughly and harshly disturbed by the latest developments.

38. Following a mounting number of incidents, of infil-tration and sabotage on the Israel side of the Israel-Jordan sector, referred to in the Secretary-General's report of this day. [S/7930/Add.64], an extensive military action by Israel in Jordan has brought about a highly dangerous situation in the Middle East.

39. My country greatly deplores this recourse to violence in the area. We likewise deplore the loss of life and suffering and express our heartfelt sympathy with those affected. The road to a permanent peace in the Middle East cannot be paved with this type of forceful military action which has been undertaken during the last twenty-four hours.

40. I wish to join with earlier speakers in affirming that the Security Council, summoned to deal with the present situation, cannot condone these acts of violence. The Council must insist on scrupulous observance of the cease-fire, and a cessation of all military activities as required by several Security Council resolutions which are well known.

41. I would at the same time appeal to both Israel and Jordan to facilitate the assignment by the Secretary-General of United Nations observers to supervise the cease-fire. The need for this action is demonstrated all too clearly in the information passed on by General Odd Bull and contained in the report of the Secretary-General to which I have referred.

42. The Council is undoubtedly placed at a disadvantage by the absence of an impartial source of information which only United Nations observers can provide. In its absence we are obliged to rely on ex parte statements.

43. By helping to establish conditions of calm, United Nations supervision would assist the efforts of the United Nations special representative to achieve agreement on the application of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and hence to remove the circumstances which have led to this deplorable outbreak of violence. Moreover, we must recog-nize that in addition to imposing suffering on the people in the countries concerned, such outbreaks seriously endanger the task undertaken by the United Nations special represen-tative.

44. The supreme need in the Middle East is peace. That was the objective of Security Council resolution 242(1967) and is the acknowledged aim of the parties. But it is not the language of the resolutions of the Security Council which will bring peace to this tormented area and its unfortunate inhabitants; it is the will and action of the. Governments concerned.

45. I do not see that a better opportunity is available to -the Governments than the peace mission authorized by the Council through the Secretary-General's special representative; and I believe that we have a right in the Council to request urgently that every effort be made by the Governments concerned to co-operate with the Jarring mission.

46. In addition to other measures, members of the Council might therefore consider the possibility of taking this opportunity: first, to reaffirm Security Council resolution, 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967; second, to call on the parties concerned to accept that resolution; third, to call on the parties concerned to co-operate with the Secretary-General's special representative, Mr. Jarring, in his endeavors-and I quote from the resolution: "to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution".

47. I would hope, therefore, that whatever else may come out of this debate, our action here will strengthen mission which this Council entrusted to the Secretary-General's special representative and the will of the Govern-ments concerned to work for a political solution rather than have recourse to force.

48. Mr. BORCH (Denmark): My Government has followed with the utmost concern developments over the last days and weeks along the cease-fire line between Israel and Jordan and the increasing number of violent actions across that cease-fire line, the latest of them being the very serious large-scale Israel military action against objectives in Jordan.

49. Those unfortunate incidents have demonstrated once more the deplorable lack of stability in the area and the urgent need for a just and lasting peace as called for unanimously by the Council in its resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. We supported that resolution as indeed we have supported all resolutions of the Council since the outbreak of the war in the Middle East in June 1967. By the same token we must deplore all violations of the cease-fire established and maintained in accordance with several resolutions of the Security Council.

50. We must oppose violence and the resort to force and insist upon complete compliance with the cease-fire resolutions. Violations of these resolutions are not only contrary to the specific arrangements in force in the area but also cannot but poison the atmosphere and even carry with them the risk of continued and increased conflict. In any case they cannot but impede progress towards the objectives of the above-mentioned resolution.

51. The task with which the Secretary-General and his special representative were entrusted, in particular, in paragraph 3 of operative resolution 242 (1967), is immense and difficult-I am tempted to say almost beyond description. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to emphasize the Danish Government's full confidence in our esteemed Secretary-General and in his special representative, Mr. Jarring, and our full support for their efforts, whose importance cannot be overestimated.

52. In this connection let me say that I feel convinced that my Government will support the Secretary-General in such endeavors as he may find it opportune to take for the strengthening of United Nations supervision in the area. We do expect that all parties will co-operate fully with the authorities of the United Nations.

53. If lasting solutions are to be achieved now it will, in our view, be only through the mission of the special representative of the Secretary-General. Therefore, in our opinion it is the duty of all members of this Council to support that mission; indeed that is the duty of all Members of the United Nations. But above all it is the duty of the parties concerned to co-operate in good faith with the special representative, to extend to him all the goodwill to which he is entitled and to do nothing which may jeopardize his mission, which is so vitally important to the peace and well-being of all the nations and peoples of the Middle East. Therefore, in an otherwise dark and gloomy situation one might perhaps be allowed to see a small glimmer of hope in the fact that the representatives of Israel and Jordan in addressing the Council today both reaffirmed their positive attitude to the continued mission of Mr. Jarring.

54. Mr. DE CARVALHO SILOS (Brazil): Inasmuch as this is the first time that I have taken the floor since the arrival of the new representative of the Soviet Union in the Council, allow me, Mr. President, to convey to Ambassador Malik the warm welcome of the Brazilian delegation.

55. My delegation heard with a sense of shock and anxiety the news of the military operations carried out today by Israel forces on the cast bank of the Jordan River. On past occasions I have stated the view that we in this Council cannot condone the use of force under any form whatsoeve-r. If the use of force is to be deplored in any circumstance, it must really be condemned in the case of the Middle East, where peace depends on a precarious cease-fire. It has been equally with grave concern that we have been following the series of armed attacks launched from Jordanian territory through and beyond the cease-fire line, on the west bank of the Jordan River, now occupied by Israel forces. Both kinds of action constitute an unmistakable violation of the cease-fire resolutions adopted by the Security Council, and both kinds of action worsen the grave situation in the Middle East and jeopardize the prospects for peace which have been opened up by Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967.

56. We are not here to review history or to pass judgement on its behalf; we are here to act and to act promptly. My delegation feels that we should deplore the recent violations of the cease-fire and that both parties should be warned against any repetition of the regrettable and dangerous actions that have brought more suffering and misery to the Jordan valley. Furthermore, all Israel troops should return forthwith to their positions on the west bank of the Jordan River.

57. But we may go beyond this and take one more step. The Secretary-General's report stated the following in reference to the events that have brought us here tonight:

"Unfortunately, little or no verified information on these developments has been available to the Secretary-General because no United Nations observers are deployed in the Israel-Jordan sector as has been reported previously to the Council." [/17930/Add.64, para. 2.]

It is the firm belief of my delegation that, in taking steps to cope with the present situation in the Middle East, the Council should take into consideration the point made by the Secretary-General, giving due attention to the need for the deployment of United Nations observers in the Israel-Jordan sector of the cease-fire line.

58. I cannot emphasize sufficiently what we consider to be the vital condition for any future progress towards peace in the Middle East, and that is the maintenance of the cease-fire. The cease-fire is the fragile thread on which depend all hopes for a settlement of the Middle East question. Let us resolve here tonight to strengthen that thread.

59. Mr. SOLANO LOPEZ (Paraguay) (translated from Spanish): Mr. President, my delegation wishes to thank you for acting so promptly today to convene these urgent meetings of the Security Council following upon the very serious events that have taken place in the troubled land of Palestine.

60. Just as, not long ago, my Government and my delegation deplored the actions and incidents in the Israel-Jordan area, today we deplore the violation of the cease-fire and the operations carried out in Jordanian territory east of the Jordan. In a region which has recently known the turmoil of war and whose wounds from that last conflict have not yet healed, these new events add a disturbing and frightening note to an already tense and precarious situation. We know that violence cannot solve any of the basic problems of that or any other area; we cannot therefore condone such acts of violence; still less can we condone them as retaliatory measures. And if, as often happens, violence gives rise to renewed violence, events can but add to the many complex problems that already exist.

61. We all know, moreover, that if we do not take swift and effective action these latest hostilities may be followed by others and still others ' which could have direct and indirect consequences not only for the States involved in the conflict of June 1967, but for other states as well. To complete this distressing picture I may add that the incidents have occurred precisely at the moment when, in execution of resolution 242 (1967) adopted unanimously by the Security Council on 22 November 1967, the special representative of the Secretary-General is patiently and untiringly seeking ways and means likely to lead ultimately to appeasement in the Middle East, a region that has already taken so much punishment through destruction, loss of life and decades of human suffering.

62. In view of the bloody events that have just taken place, we have an absolute and unavoidable duty here and now to restore the status quo. We know of course that the situation was itself only temporary, but it did at least allow the Secretary-General's special representative to carry on with his task and make the first move towards a just and therefore stable peace, which is the common aim of us all.

63. We are confronted with some very serious facts, and we have before us the basic information we need for determining their exact nature. This information is to be found in the letters signed by the representatives of Jordan and Israel and in the explanatory statements which those delegations have made to the Council in the course of today. We have also the supplemental information sub-mitted to us by the Secretary-General, and it is to his report that I particularly wish to refer; I should like to quote paragraph 2:

"In recent days there have been indications from various sources of increasing tension in the Israel-Jordan sector, relating to terrorist activities on the Israel side and threats of retaliatory action on its part. There have also been reports of an unusual build-up of Israel military force in the Jordan valley area. Unfortunately, little or no verified information on these developments has be en available to the Secretary-General because no United Nations observers are deployed in the Israel-Jordan sector as has been reported previously to the Council." [Ibid.]

64. My delegation trusts that at this anxious time, when international peace and security are in the balance, and bearing in mind the background information just men-tioned, the Security Council will act promptly and effec-tively to ensure that there are no further dangerous violations of the cease-fire, to secure the implementation of its unanimous November 1967 resolution, back up the peace-making activities of the Secretary-General and his special representative, and to create an atmosphere con-ducive to the attainment of the peace so badly needed in the Middle East.

65. These, Mr. President, are preliminary views, and my delegation may have occasion to speak again later in the debate.

66. Mr. LIU Chieh (China): The case which now confronts the Council is by no means unique in the history of the Middle East. With varying details, this has happened many times during the past twenty years. It usually starts with terrorist raids from one side and is followed by retaliatory action from the other, involving the deployment of regular troops and heavy armaments and aircraft. The magnitude of the reprisal is often out of all proportion to the nature of the provocation. The Chief of Staff of UNTSO, Lieutenant-General Odd Bull, has reported that:

"In recent days there have been indications from various sources of increasing tension in the Israel-Jordan sector, relating to terrorist activities on the Israel side and threats of retaliatory action on its part." [Ibid.]

But because no United Nations observers have been deployed in the Israel-Jordan sector, little verified information on these developments has been made available.

67. There is no doubt, however, that tension has been building up in the Jordan valley area for some time. The report of General Bull has confirmed the worst fears contained in the letter of the representative of Jordan of 19 March 1968, [S/8478] addressed to the President of the Council, warning that an armed attack was imminent against his country.

68. On a number of occasions my delegation has in the Security Council stated its opposition to the doctrine of retaliation. We believe that no Government, even under extreme provocation, is justified in taking the law into its own hands. Retaliation brings in its train counter-retaliation, thus setting in motion a vicious circle of crisis and bloodshed. My delegation therefore strongly feels that the mass attack launched by Israel in the name of retaliation calls for censure, as it has been censured by all members of the Council who spoke before me.

69. In the present circumstances, the first order of business before the Council is obviously to arrange for a return to normality-at least, such normality as the resolutions of the Council have sought to establish since June 1967. Inasmuch as there are no United Nations observers the Israel-Jordan sector, it seems to my delegation that the United Nations should establish its presence in that sector without further delay.

70. As Members of the United Nations, both Israel and Jordan have firmly committed themselves to the principles of the Charter which call upon all Member States to settle their differences by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any State.

71. It is the hope of my delegation that in the aftermath of a terrible war steps will be taken to resolve the basic issues that have for so long embittered Arab-Israel relations. More than ever before, enmity must give way to conciliation and magnanimity so that the efforts of the special representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Jarring, may be pressed forward in a climate conducive to a peaceful settlement.

72. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I have no further speakers on my list at present. From consultations I have held, it appears that certain members of the Council would like to suspend the meeting for one hour. If there is no objection, I should like to ask the opinion of the Council on this suggestion.

73. Mr. GOLDBERG (United States of America): I have no objection to a one-hour suspension if it would serve a- constructive purpose tonight. However, I am advised by the Secretariat that there are three representatives who would like to speak tomorrow-the representatives of Jordan, Syria and Israel. If this is indeed the case, then I wonder what purpose would be served by our suspending tonight for an hour when we must resume our meeting tomorrow to hear the representatives who have requested to speak.

54. PRESIDENT (translated from French): Since there is an objection to the one-hour suspension which had been requested, I shall now put before the Council the second suggestion that was made to me-namely, to adjourn this meeting until 11.30 tomorrow morning.

55. Mr. BOUATTOURA (Algeria) (translated from French): You have made a proposal, Mr. President, and if I understood correctly, the representative of the United States did not express a specific objection to the suspension of the meeting. My delegation feels, in view of the gravity of the situation, that consultations lasting one hour, even if they did not permit us to reach a conclusion, could at all events enable the Council to make worthwhile progress in this work. I have just been informed, moreover, that two of the three speakers mentioned by the representative of the United States would not insist on speaking. Therefore, in so as the Council wishes to show itself equal to its
responsibilities-and I am convinced that such is the feeling of all members of the Council-my delegation would gladly accept the first alternative which you put before the Council, namely to suspend the meeting for one hour.

76. PRESIDENT (translated from French): I should like to put a question to the representative of the United States. Since the representative of Algeria considers that his objection was not a specific one, I should like to ask him whether he is prepared to withdraw it.

77. Mr. GOLDBERG (United States of America): Having “non-objected", I have really nothing to withdraw. I have no objection, as I said, to consulting at any time if it will forward the work of the Council. I had assumed that those who made the proposal were not aware, as I was, that there was a speakers' list for tomorrow. If it is the desire of the Council to recess now for consultations for an hour, or for any other period of time, I shall be here for those consultations.

78. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): Since there is no further objection to the first proposal, I shall now suspend the meeting for one hour.

The meeting was suspended at 11 p.m; it was resumed on Friday, 22 March, at 12.35 a. m.

79. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I have no further speakers on my list. In accordance with consul-tations we have held and if there is no objection, I propose that we adjourn the debate now and resume it at 12 noon today.

The meeting rose on Friday, 22 March, at 12.40 a. m.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter