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

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information (DPI)
31 December 1971
YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED
NATIONS

1971



Office of Public Information
United Nations, New York


The situation in the Middle East

During 1971, efforts continued in the search for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem. The Secretary-General reported on the activities of his Special Representative to the Middle East, Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring--in particular, Ambassador Jarring's renewed efforts to carry out the mandate entrusted to him by the Security Council in its resolution of 22 November 1967. 1/

At its twenty-sixth session, which opened on 21 September 1971, the General Assembly again discussed the situation in the Middle East, and on 13 December adopted a resolution sponsored by 21 States. By this, the Assembly among other things reaffirmed the principle that the acquisition of territories by force was inadmissible and that territories thus occupied must be restored. It also reaffirmed that the establishment of peace in the Middle East should include application of the following two principles--which had been set forth in the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967--namely: (a) withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict; and (b) termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and its right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

The Assembly also asked the Secretary-General to take measures to reactivate Ambassador Jarring's mission and invited the parties to the conflict to co-operate with the Special Representative in working out practical measures to: guarantee freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; achieve a just settlement of the refugee problem; and guarantee the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area. The Security Council was asked to consider, if necessary, making arrangements under the relevant Articles of the United Nations Charter with regard to the implementation of its resolution of 22 November 1967.

Also during 1971, communications and reports concerning the status of the cease-fire between Israel on the one hand, and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic on the other, were received by the Security Council which, owing to the relative quiet in the area, was not convened to consider that aspect of the question.

The Council did, however, meet to consider charges by Jordan that Israel was adopting measures to change the character and status of the City of Jerusalem. On 25 September, the Council adopted a resolution by which among other things it urgently called on Israel to rescind all previous measures and to take no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem tending to change the status of the City or prejudicing the rights of its inhabitants or the interests of the international community.

The question of the treatment of the civilian population of the Arab territories occupied by Israel was again considered by the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly, both of which took decisions based on the findings of the three-member Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.

Details of these and other related matters are described in the sections that follow.


Search for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem

Reports by Secretary-General

In a report dated 30 November 1971, the Secretary-General gave a comprehensive review of the activities of his Special Representative to the Middle East, Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring, since January 1971.

The Special Representative, the report stated, had resumed his discussions with the parties early in January and had received memoranda from them elaborating their positions. Israel had presented papers containing its views on the "essentials of peace," and Egypt and Jordan had subsequently presented papers containing their views on the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. 2/

The Secretary-General said he had noted with growing concern that each side had been insisting that the other make certain commitments before the formulation of provisions for a peace settlement. Israel had insisted that Egypt should give specific, direct and reciprocal commitments that it would be ready to enter into a peace agreement and to make various undertakings within the framework of the resolution of 22 November 1967. When agreement was reached on those points, it would then be possible to discuss others, including the refugee problem.

Egypt, the Secretary-General said, had continued to regard the resolution of 22 November 1967 as containing provisions to be implemented by the parties, and for its part had once again expressed its readiness to carry out its obligations under the resolution, provided that Israel did likewise. Egypt had held, however, that Israel persisted in its refusal to implement the resolution, since it would not commit itself to withdraw from all Arab territories occupied in June 1967. Furthermore, according to Egypt, Israel had not committed itself to implementing the United Nations resolutions relevant to a just settlement of the refugee problem.

The Secretary-General added that the papers received by Ambassador Jarring from Israel and Jordan relating to peace between those two countries showed a similar divergence of views. Israel had stressed that Jordan should enter into a peace agreement specifying each party's direct and reciprocal obligations; Jordan emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and held that an Israeli commitment to evacuate all occupied territories was an essential first step towards peace.

At that stage of the talks, the Secretary-General said, his Special Representative had reached the conclusion, which he shared, that the only possibility of breaking the deadlock arising from the differing views of Israel and Egypt as to the priority to be given to commitments and undertakings was for him to seek from each side the parallel and simultaneous commitments that seemed to be the inevitable prerequisites of an eventual peace settlement. It should thereafter be possible to formulate at once the terms of a peace agreement, not only for those topics covered by the commitments but with equal priority for other topics, in particular the refugee problem.

Thus, in identical aides-memoires to Egypt and Israel on 8 February, Ambassador Jarring requested them to make certain prior commitments. His initiative was presented on the basis that the commitments should be made simultaneously and reciprocally and subject to the eventual satisfactory determination of all other aspects of a peace settlement, including in particular a just settlement of the refugee problem. Israel would commit itself to withdraw its forces from occupied Egyptian territory to the former international boundary between Egypt and the British Mandate of Palestine. Egypt would commit itself to enter into a peace agreement with Israel and to make explicitly therein to Israel, on a reciprocal basis, various undertakings and acknowledgements arising directly and indirectly from the Security Councils resolution adopted on 22 November 1967. On 15 February, Egypt indicated that it would accept the specific commitments requested of it, as well as other commitments arising directly or indirectly from the resolution. It would also be ready to enter into a peace agreement with Israel if Israel would give commitments covering its own obligations under the resolution, including commitments for the withdrawal of its armed forces from Sinai and the Gaza Strip and for the achievement of a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

On 17 February, the Special Representative informed Israel of Egypt's reply to his aide memoire. On 26 February, Israel, without specific reference to the commitments which the Special Representative had sought from that Government, stated that it viewed favourably Egypt's expression of readiness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and reiterated that it was prepared for meaningful negotiations on all subjects relevant to a peace agreement. Israel considered that both parties, having presented their basic positions, should now pursue detailed and concrete negotiations without prior conditions.

On the question of withdrawal, on which the Special Representative had sought a commitment from Israel, the Israeli position was that it would give an undertaking to withdraw from the Israeli-Egyptian cease-fire line to secure, recognized and agreed boundaries to be established in the peace agreement; it would not withdraw to the lines existing prior to June 1967.

On 28 February, Ambassador Jarring informed Egypt of the contents of the Israeli communication. Egypt held that it was improper for the Israeli authorities to have responded to Egypt's reply, which had been addressed to Ambassador Jarring and which would have full effect only if the Israeli authorities gave the commitment requested of them by Ambassador Jarring.

The Secretary-General reported that he had then stated that the problems to be settled had been more clearly identified and that on some points there was general agreement. He had also noted with satisfaction the positive reply given by Egypt to Ambassador Jarring's initiative. However, Israel had not so far responded to the request of the Special Representative that it should give a commitment on withdrawal to the international boundary of Egypt. In view of that, the Secretary-General had appealed to Israel to respond favourably to Ambassador Jarring's initiative. He also appealed to the parties to withhold fire and maintain the quiet which had prevailed in the area since August 1970. Israel had then indicated its to continue to observe the cease-fire on a basis of reciprocity. However, the President of Egypt had declared on 7 March that his Government was no longer committed to a cease-fire.

The Secretary-General said that on 11 March Israel had informed Ambassador Jarring that it was awaiting Egypt's reaction to Israel's invitation to enter into detailed and concrete discussions. Egypt maintained that it was still awaiting an Israeli reply to Ambassador Jarring's aide-memoire.

Subsequently, the Secretary-General reported, the talks under Ambassador Jarring's auspices had lapsed. He had therefore resumed his post as Ambassador of Sweden to the USSR on 25 March. Although he returned to Headquarters from 5 to 12 May and from 21 September to 27 October and had held certain consultations elsewhere, he had found himself faced with the same deadlock and with no possibility of actively pursuing his mission.

During much of this time, the Secretary-General noted, the promotion of agreement between the parties was the object of two separate initiatives--first, an effort by the United States to promote an interim agreement providing for the reopening of the Suez Canal, which had not, so far, achieved any positive results. The second initiative was a mission of inquiry being conducted by certain African Heads of State on behalf of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Both initiatives were described by the sponsors as designed to facilitate the resumption of Ambassador Jarring's mission. While they were being pursued, they obviously constituted an additional reason for him not to take personal initiatives.

In the introduction to his annual report to the General Assembly, the Secretary-General said that if the impasse in the search for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East persisted, there could be little doubt that new fighting would break out sooner or later. The parties had taken advantage of the current lull to strengthen considerably their military capabilities and any new round of fighting would be more violent and dangerous than previous ones. There was always the danger, he added, that it might not be possible to limit it to the present antagonists and to the confines of the Middle East.

The Secretary-General believed that the only way to forestall such a disastrous eventuality was to intensify the search for a peaceful and agreed settlement. The Security Council's cease-fire resolutions of June 1967 3/ and its resolution of 22 November 1967, if implemented simultaneously and fully, should provide the framework for achieving such a settlement.

He went on to say that Ambassador Jarring had clearly defined the minimum conditions required to move the peace talks ahead and, until those conditions were met, it was hard to see what else he could do to further his efforts. Steps to ensure that those conditions were met had to be taken by the parties concerned and, failing that, by the Security Council itself or by the States Members of the United Nations--particularly the permanent members of the Security Council, both because of their special responsibility within the United Nations and their influence on the parties concerned.


Communications from Israel and Egypt relating to OAU proposals

On 9 December 1971, Israel transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of Israel's reply to proposals made by the Committee of Ten African Heads of State of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Israel stated that it agreed: (a) to resume negotiations without prior conditions under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring within the terms of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967; (b) to work out a Suez Canal agreement, the details of which would be negotiated and agreed; (c) that secure and recognized boundaries should be determined by negotiations between the parties and embodied in the peace agreement; (d) that in addition to the determination of agreed, secure and recognized boundaries, further arrangements for ensuring security could be negotiated; (e) that the terms of withdrawal to the boundaries negotiated and agreed should be embodied in the peace treaty; and (f) that the question of Sharm el Sheikh would be included in the peace negotiations as specified in point (c) above. In accordance with the Security Council's resolution, free navigation in all international waterways, such as the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran, for all ships and cargoes, including those of Israel, would be provided for in the peace agreement.

On 10 December 1971, Egypt transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of a memorandum submitted to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of four African Heads of State in response to the proposals submitted by the OAU Committee of Ten. The memorandum stated that Egypt:

(1) agreed to hold indirect negotiations under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring for the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 in all its parts;

(2) was ready to undertake the required arrangements for reopening the Suez Canal in return for the first stage of Israeli withdrawal on condition that Israel responded positively to Ambassador Jarring's aide-memoire of 8 February;

(3) agreed that secure and recognized boundaries should be embodied in the peace agreement, based on the withdrawal of Israeli forces to the lines of 5 June 1967 and in conformity with the borders specified in Ambassador Jarring's initiative, which underlined the necessity of the withdrawal of Israeli forces to Egypt's international borders;

(4) accepted as guarantees for peace: (a) United Nations guarantees; (b) establishment of demilitarized zones astride the borders; and (c) stationing of international forces at some strategic points; and

(5) accepted the stationing of international forces in Sharm el Sheikh to guarantee the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Tiran.

Consideration by General Assembly

On 25 September 1971, the General Assembly included the item "The situation in the Middle East" in its agenda and discussed it at plenary meetings held between 3 and 14 December.

Opening the debate, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt stated that his Government asked the General Assembly to consider Israel's continued aggression and expansionist policy--the emergence of a colonial power invoking military conquest as a means of territorial expansion. The expulsion of inhabitants of the occupied territories, the destruction of villages, houses and refugee camps and the establishment of Israeli colonies were examples of such policy.

The Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 4/ had, he said, clearly emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. That principle--which was based on the United Nations Charter--should apply fully to all the occupied territories and could not be fragmented. Israel had not only refused to implement the resolution but had also attempted to distort its provisions. Thus, it had selected a particular phrase referring to "secure and recognized boundaries" and used the words to try to justify its policy of territorial expansion. But, he stressed the resolution referred to all States in the area and not only to Israel. Security could rest only on respect for territorial integrity, political independence and sovereignty. It could be reinforced by a system of guarantees under the auspices of the Security Council, but Israel had rejected all proposals on security measures.

Outlining the initiatives and endeavours of the past four years to carry out the peaceful settlement embodied in the Security Council's resolution including the mission of the African Heads of State, the Egyptian Foreign Minister declared that Israel had employed manoeuvres, delaying tactics and slogans to undermine every opportunity for a peaceful settlement. The latest of such tactics was its declaration that it was ready to resume talks with Ambassador Jarring without pre-conditions. Were there any pre-conditions in the Jarring memorandum of 8 February 1971? If Israel considered itself bound by the Charter, by the Security Council's resolution, by the principle of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force, and by the rules and norms of international legal order, then there were no pre-conditions whatsoever in the memorandum.

The Egyptian Foreign Minister went on to say that opposition to Israel's colonial policy was universal. However, in the case of the United States there was a basic contradiction between that country's declared commitment to support the territorial integrity of all the States in the Middle East and its policy of providing military and economic aid to Israel. Nothing had enabled Israel to evade its obligations more than its reliance on United States support. By its aggression against three Arab States and by its failure to meet its obligations under the resolution of 22 November 1967, Israel had violated the United Nations Charter. The enforcement measures of Chapter VII of the Charter 5/ were specifically envisaged to meet such a situation.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel said that the urgent task was to strengthen the cease-fire, to begin detailed and concrete negotiations, and to show directions in which a final peace could be approached. The Middle East was in turmoil largely because the Arab Governments had never had a true perception of Israel's purpose or identity. Contrary to Egypt's assertion that Israel was an expansionist, imperialist country imposing its power on the Arab world, his country, the Foreign Minister said, was a small nation fighting for its own peace, freedom and security. Since the war of June 1967, Egypt had refused to meet Israel at the conference table and had declined all negotiations except on condition that its terms be accepted in advance. Israel, on the other hand, had sought negotiation, agreement and peace with Egypt. Maintenance of the cease-fire was the essential condition for progress towards peace.

He went on to say that Egypt had refused to co-operate with the United States in seeking a Suez Canal agreement, although the opening of the Canal, with a withdrawal of Israeli forces to an agreed distance from the cease-fire lines, would carry tangible advantages to Egypt and would weaken Israel's position strategically. Israel was prepared to make those concessions, provided that compensating conditions for its security were ensured. Israel would undertake that the Canal agreement would not affect or annul the agreement of August 1970, by which Israel and Egypt would hold discussions under Ambassador Jarring's auspices in conformity with his mandate under the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 to promote agreement on a final settlement. When agreement on a final boundary had been reached in the peace settlement, Israeli forces would withdraw to it. Israel's position was fully in accordance with international law, with the established precedents of peace-making and with the Security Council's resolution.

The Israeli Foreign Minister said that, with regard to Ambassador Jarring's aide-memoire of 8 February 1971, the assertion that Egypt had made a positive response while Israel had given a negative reply, or none at all, was not true. Egypt had replied to nearly all the points in Ambassador Jarring's aide-memoire not with a straightforward acceptance but with a counter-proposal. The Egyptian reply differed from the Jarring memorandum on many positions. Israel had also replied to Ambassador Jarring's proposals, sometimes in general acceptance and in some cases with counter-proposals. Its reply was in full accord with the Charter and with the Security Council's resolution. Each party was within its right in stating its basic position in its reply. Now that the parties had done that, they should pursue their negotiations in a detailed and concrete manner, without prior conditions and with a view to concluding a peace agreement.

Israel, he said, had also welcomed the initiative taken by the African Heads of State and had replied positively to their proposals aimed at resolving the deadlock without prior surrender of its position by either party. The main virtue of the proposals was that they placed the renewal of Ambassador Jarring's mission strictly within the terms of the resolution of 22 November 1967 and did not attempt to specify the conclusions which the negotiations should reach.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal said that the purpose of the OAU mission had been to establish contacts with the parties in order to help towards the resumption of Ambassador Jarring's mission. The main concern of OAU was the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

At the talks with the parties, he said, some positive elements had emerged: Egypt had accepted the resumption of negotiations under Ambassador Jarring and it had maintained its proposal for an interim Suez Canal agreement to enable the Special Representative to establish a timetable for implementing the resolution. Israel, for its part, had confirmed its acceptance of the resolution and, although it preferred direct negotiations, was prepared to undertake indirect negotiations through Ambassador Jarring. Israel had also agreed to the conclusion of an interim agreement on the reopening of the Suez Canal, provided that such agreement was not linked to the resolution.

The remaining obstacles, the Foreign Minister of Senegal said, were the withdrawal of Israeli troops and the concept of secure and recognized boundaries, which Israel based on security considerations. He pointed out that no State could invoke security reasons to seize or annex territories of other States. That principle, he added, should be reaffirmed in order to enable Ambassador Jarring to resume his mission.

The representative of China said that the essence of the Middle East question was the aggression of Israeli zionism against the Palestinians and other Arab peoples, with the support of the United States. It was because of the arms provided by the United States to Israel that the Palestinian people and other Arab countries had failed in their efforts to recover the lost territories.

Under the control and manipulation of the super-powers, he said, the United Nations had also ignored the just demands of the Palestinians and other Arab peoples and had adopted resolutions that were unjust to the Arabs and in contravention of the Charter. Also, the two super-powers were taking advantage of the temporary difficulties facing the Palestinians and other Arab peoples to make political deals in their contention for important strategic points and oil resources and the division of spheres of influence in the Middle East at the expense of the national rights and territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Arab peoples. That was why the question had remained unsolved for so long.

The theory of so-called secure boundaries advanced by Israel, he said, was only an excuse to perpetuate the occupation of the territories seized; to accept it would be tantamount to recognizing as legal the aggression and expansion of Israeli zionism.

China maintained that Israel must withdraw from the Arab territories it had occupied and that the legitimate rights of the Palestinians to return to their homeland and to national existence must be restored.

The USSR representative maintained that the key to the restoration of peace in the Middle East was the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Arab territories. The United Nations had taken a definite stand against Israeli occupation by the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967, by the General Assembly's 1970 Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security 6/ and by the Assembly's resolution of 4 November 1970 on the situation in the Middle East, 7/ Israel had defied those decisions and, with the support of the United States, had paralysed Ambassador Jarring's mission.

Moreover, he went on to say, the United States had blocked the work of the consultative meetings of the permanent members of the Security Council on the Middle East, making it impossible to reach any agreed decision. It had instead undertaken a one-sided uncalled-for mediation that had proved a total fiasco. It was time to return to the collective diplomacy of the United Nations through the Jarring mission, with consultations by the permanent members and the participation of the Security Council and the General Assembly in a Middle East settlement.

The USSR believed that the General Assembly could effectively contribute to a solution of the problem if it displayed determination to curb the aggressor and called upon the United States not to play the role of mediator. The USSR was prepared to participate, together with other States, in establishing international guarantees for a political settlement and for security in the Middle East.

The United States representative said his country had supported all United Nations efforts to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict; it favoured a peaceful settlement based on agreement among the parties within the framework of the provisions and principles of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. Unfortunately, efforts towards an over-all peace settlement had not produced the results which had been hoped for.

The most promising avenue of progress since February 1971, he said, had been the possibility of an agreement on interim measures, involving partial Israeli withdrawal from Sinai and a reopening of the Suez Canal as a step towards final peace. Both Egypt and Israel, on their own initiative, had expressed interest in that concept and both had asked the United States to assist them in pursuing negotiations towards that end. However, a major difficulty had been that the parties had sought to introduce into the context of an interim agreement concepts which logically belonged in an over-all settlement. The merits of an interim agreement were precisely that it offered a prospect for practical on-the-ground progress, while leaving some of the most difficult problems for further negotiations at a subsequent stage.

The United States spokesman added that although the negotiations on an interim agreement were in suspense--temporarily, he believed--his Government would review the situation after the General Assembly's debate had been concluded. Both sides had put forward positive ideas; both sides held firmly to key points; both sides would be required to make adjustments if an interim agreement was indeed to be achieved.

The basic problem, he stressed, was to find ways to help both sides overcome the deep suspicion and distrust they felt towards each other.

The United States representative commended the mission undertaken by the OAU Committee of Ten to promote a narrowing of the differences between the parties.

The spokesman for the United Kingdom said that virtually all Member States, including the main parties to the conflict, agreed that any Middle East settlement should be based on the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967; disagreement arose as to the means to achieve that end. His Government had wholeheartedly supported the three main attempts made over the past year to bring about a settlement in accordance with the Council's resolution. It believed that an interim agreement on the reopening of the Suez Canal, if successfully concluded, would result in a certain deconfrontation that might pave the way for a comprehensive settlement. The OAU mission was also a valuable initiative, as it was intended to move the Jarring mission out of the present impasse. Finally, the most important development in Ambassador Jarring's mission had been his initiative of 8 February.

In this connexion, the United Kingdom representative noted that Israel, in its response, had clearly indicated that its main concern was not with territory but with security. If Israel were able, in the context of the correspondence with Ambassador Jarring, to say that it had no desire to incorporate any Egyptian territory into the State of Israel, that might constitute the response which Ambassador Jarring needed to resume the search for a peaceful settlement.

The United Kingdom, he said, believed that dialogue must supplant confrontation; he hoped that, at an early stage after the resumption of Ambassador Jarring's mission, it would be possible to arrange some closer form of contact between the Egyptian and Israeli Governments to agree on the basis of a settlement. A similar procedure might then be followed in the case of the other parties concerned.

The representative of France said that the first obstacle to peace in the Middle East resulted from the scope and multiplicity of problems which could be resolved only in the framework of an over-all settlement. That was the essence of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967: peace could be lastingly established only if the settlement dealt with all the problems and applied to all the countries concerned.

A second obstacle, he said, resulted from the interpretation of the concept of withdrawal in relation to commitments to peace, a question that must be settled in accordance with the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. Since the right of conquest was excluded, he added, borders must coincide--except for minor, agreed-upon rectifications--with the borders and lines existing prior to the 1967 conflict. Respect for those borders, ensured by the peace agreement would be strengthened by political and military measures taken by the parties, as well as by international guarantees.

The third obstacle, according to the French representative, resulted from deep divergences concerning the solution to the painful problem of the Palestinian people. Without a solution to that problem, any settlement negotiated by the States concerned might, in the long run, be jeopardized.

France, he concluded, believed that the General Assembly could make a useful contribution to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East by reaffirming the necessary principles, by inviting the parties to comply with them, and by supporting the efforts of Ambassador Jarring and encouraging him to pursue his task.

Representatives of Arab States said that the moral aspects and legal implications of the Middle East problem had been debated exhaustively in the United Nations and many resolutions had been adopted; but the time had come for the General Assembly to take concrete action to end Israel's occupation of Arab territories and to ensure respect for the inalienable rights of the Palestinians.

Several Arab Members, in particular Algeria, Iraq and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, maintained that any political solution to the problem of Palestine that was based on the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 would not be practical; that resolution had addressed itself only to the situation created by the Israeli aggression of June 1967. The Algerian representative said that the alleged equilibrium of the resolution rested, above all, on a flagrant injustice to the Palestinians and constituted a vexing and dangerous precedent for future aggression.

Saudi Arabia stated that even if the conflict between Israel and the three Arab neighbouring States were to be solved, the core of the problem would remain. Israel was a foreign body in the region and the zionists were usurping colonialists. Peace could be achieved only if Israel's domination ceased and a democratic State established in which both Jews and Arabs could live together.

Many Arab spokesmen deplored United States military assistance to Israel which, they believed, had helped Israel in its aggression and its continued defiance of United Nations decisions.

The majority of speakers, including representatives from Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, shared the view that the General Assembly should demand a positive and definitive answer from Israel to Ambassador Jarring's aide-memoire of 8 February 1971 concerning the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied Arab territories.

Many Members praised the OAU mission for its conciliation efforts and felt that the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 provided the basis for a political solution. They felt that Ambassador Jarring's mission should be reactivated and that the parties should co-operate in good faith to seek a peaceful settlement.

On 13 December, the General Assembly adopted--by a recorded vote of 79 to 7, with 36 abstentions--a draft resolution sponsored by the following 21 Members: Afghanistan, Cameroon, the Congo, Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Spain, the United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia and Zambia. It was revised by the sponsors during the course of the debate to take into account amendments by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

By the preambular part of this text, the General Assembly among other things expressed its deep concern at the continuation of the grave situation prevailing in the Middle East, particularly since the conflict of June 1967, which constituted a serious threat to international peace and security. The Assembly said it was convinced that the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 should be implemented immediately in all its parts in order to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area could live in security. It expressed grave concern at the continuation of Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 5 June 1967.

By the operative part of the text, the Assembly:

(1) reaffirmed that the acquisition of territories by force was inadmissible and that, consequently, territories thus occupied must be restored;

(2) reaffirmed that the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the application of both the following principles: (a) withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and (b) termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and its right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

(3) requested the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to reactivate the mission of his Special Representative to the Middle East in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to reach a peace agreement as envisaged in the Special Representative's aide-memoire of 8 February 1971;

(4) expressed its full support for all the efforts of the Special Representative to implement the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967;

(5) noted with appreciation the positive reply given by Egypt to the Special Representative's initiative for establishing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

(6) called upon Israel to respond favourably to the Special Representative's peace initiative;

(7) further invited the parties to the Middle East conflict to give their full co-operation to the Special Representative in order to work out practical measures for: (a) guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; (b) achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; and (c) guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area;

(8) requested the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council and to the General Assembly, as appropriate, on the progress made by the Special Representative in the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 and of the present resolution; and

(9) requested the Security Council to consider, if necessary, making arrangements, under the relevant Articles of the United Nations Charter, with regard to the implementation of its 1967 resolution.

The Assembly adopted this text as its resolution 2799 (XXVI).

(For full text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Two other draft resolutions and several amendments to the 21-power text were before the Assembly and were either voted on and rejected or withdrawn.

One of these, a text proposed by Barbados and Ghana, was withdrawn following adoption of the 21-power text. By this, the Assembly among other things would have:

(1) expressed its support for the following proposals submitted by the OAU Committee of African Heads of State for consideration by the parties: (a) resumption of indirect negotiations under Ambassador Jarring's auspices and within the terms of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967; (b) an interim agreement for the opening of the Suez Canal and the stationing--on the eastern bank of the Canal--of United Nations forces between the Egyptian and Israeli lines; (c) determination of "secure and recognized boundaries" in the peace agreement; (d) a solution to security problems to be found within the guarantee of the United Nations, in the creation of demilitarized zones, and in the presence of international forces at some strategic points; (e) embodiment in the peace agreement of the terms of withdrawal from occupied territories, and (f) a guarantee of freedom of navigation of all ships through the Strait of Tiran by the stationing of international forces at Sharm el Sheikh;

(2) taken note of the response of the parties to the aforesaid proposals;

(3) called on the Secretary-General to reactivate the mission of his Special Representative in pursuance of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967, and

(4) called on the parties to resume immediately the conversations under the auspices of the Special Representative with a view to concluding a peace agreement.

The other draft resolution, originally submitted by Costa Rica, Haiti and Uruguay, was subsequently submitted in a revised version by Costa Rica, El Salvador, Haiti and Uruguay. It was rejected by the Assembly on 13 December by a recorded vote of 56 to 18, with 47 abstentions.

By the operative part of this proposal, the Assembly would have:

(1) expressed its gratitude for the efforts of the Secretary-General's Special Representative and of the Committee of African Heads of State of OAU to achieve peace in the Middle East;

(2) requested the Special Representative to redouble his efforts to induce the belligerent parties to renew negotiations through him;

(3) requested the parties to agree to renew negotiations through the Special Representative and to do their utmost to make possible the agreements necessary for the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 taken as a single whole;

(4) urged the parties to study carefully and with determination the conciliation proposals of OAU which might constitute practical measures conducive to the implementation of the resolution of 22 November 1967 in all its provisions and hence to a just and lasting peace for the region;

(5) appealed to all Member States to help to create an atmosphere favourable to a peaceful, just and definitive solution; and

(6) decided to retain the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East" on its agenda until a peaceful, just and definitive settlement had been achieved.

Among the amendments submitted to the 21-power text and rejected by the Assembly were two by Barbados and Ghana, which would have added a new preambular paragraph by which the Assembly would express its appreciation to the Special Representative for his efforts to bring about a peace agreement, and would have substituted parts of their own draft resolution for certain operative paragraphs of the 21-power text.

Amendments proposed by Senegal and rejected by the Assembly would have deleted the phrase--in the first operative paragraph of the 21 -power text--stipulating that territories occupied by force must be restored. Also, among other things, a new operative paragraph would have noted with satisfaction the replies given by Egypt and Israel to the Committee of African Heads of State and considered the replies sufficiently positive to make possible a resumption of the Special Representative's mission. Senegal also proposed deletion of the paragraph in the 21-power draft by which the Security Council would be asked to consider, if necessary, making arrangements under the relevant Articles of the United Nations Charter to ensure the implementation of its resolution of 22 November 1967.

Prior to the vote, the representative of Canada said he could not conscientiously support any of the texts as being a realistic and forward-looking basis for renewed peace talks. What was needed, he said, was a substantial display by the parties of readiness to move forward from the fixed positions which had been at the root of the long-standing impasse. The framework for a peaceful settlement, and ample machinery for elaborating its terms, remained intact and at the parties' disposal in the form of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 and the Jarring mission. In Canada's view, there was no valid reason why the process of forging agreement should not be resumed in the wake of the Assembly's debate.

The Chinese representative said he would abstain in the vote on the 21-power text as it failed to condemn United States imperialism for its support of Israeli zionist aggression against the Arab countries and peoples, and failed to mention that the just national rights of the Palestinian people must be restored.

The United States representative said he would abstain from voting on all three texts. While agreeing with much of the revised 21-power text, the United States felt that that text would alter the balance of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. The United States attached great importance to strict adherence to that basic document he added, on which his Government's hopes for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East were based. The General Assembly could not by itself resolve the differences Ambassador Jarring had been unable to overcome, and the United States representative feared that the 21-power text might delay rather than promote the engagement of the parties in productive negotiations.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

Communications to Security Council
S/10070 and Add.1,2. Report of 4 January 1971 of Secretary-General on activities of Special Representative to Middle East, and addenda.
S/10083. Letter of 20 January 1971 from Egypt (enclosing aide-memoire of 15 January 1971 to Special Representative of Secretary-General).
S/10089. Letter of 25 January 1971 from Jordan (enclosing statement submitted to Special Representative of Secretary-General).
S/10098. Letter of 2 February 1971 from Egypt (enclosing aide-memoire of 1 February 1971 to Special Representative of Secretary-General).
S/10403 (A/8541). Report of 30 November 1971 of Secretary-General on activities of his Special Representative to Middle East.
S/10438 (A/8566). Letter of 9 December 1971 from Israel (transmitting reply of 28 November 1971 to proposals by Committee of 10 of OAU).
S/10443 (A/8576). Letter of 10 December 1971 from Egypt (enclosing memorandum to Chairman of Sub-Committee of 4 African Heads of state).

Consideration by General Assembly

General Assembly--26th session
Plenary meetings 1999-2002, 2004, 2006, 2008-2010, 2012-2017.

A/8272 (S/10075). Letter of 8 January 1971 from Egypt and Jordan.
A/8281 (S/10123). Letter of 17 February 1971 from Jordan.
A/8282 and Add.1,2 (S/10124 and Add.1,2). Report of 18 February 1971 of Secretary-General, under Security Council resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969) and 271 (1969) and General Assembly resolution 2254 (ES-V), and addenda.
A/8283 (S/10126), A/8284 (S/10127). Letters of 18 and 19 February 1971 from Israel.
A/8286 and Corr.1 (S/10130 and Corr.1). Letter of 22 February 1971 from Egypt and Jordan.
A/8288 (S/10136). Letter of 28 February 1971 from USSR.
A/8289 (S/10138). Letter 1 March 1971 from Israel.
A/8290 (S/10139). Letter of 2 March 1971 from Jordan.
A/8291 (S/10140). Letter of 2 March 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/8292 (S/10141). Letter of 2 March 1971 from Egypt.
A/8294 and Corr.1 (S/10144 and Corr.1). Letter of 4 March 1971 from Bulgaria.
A/8295 (S/10146). Letter of 5 March 1971 from Israel.
A/8296 (A/10149). Letter of 8 March 1971 from Jordan.
A/8297 (S/10152). Letter of 9 March 1971 from Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Tunisia (transmitting letter of 22 February 1971 from International Moslem Organizations).
A/8298 (S/10154). Note verbale of 11 March 1971 from Iran.
A/8300 (S/10158) Letter of 16 March 1971 from Israel.
A/8301 (S/10159). Letter of 15 March 1971 from Spain.
A/8302 (S/10160). Letter of 19 March 1971 from Israel.
A/8303 (S/10163). Letter of 23 Much 1971 from Spain.
A/8305 (S/10167). Letter of 29 March 1971 from Israel.
A/8306 (S/10168). Letter of 30 March 1071 from Spain.
A/8307 (S/10169). Letter of 1 April 1971 from Jordan.
A/8310 (S/11188). Letter of 6 May 1971 from Iraq (transmitting letter of 28 April 1971 from Grand Rabbi of Jewish Community in Iraq).
A/8318 (S/10215). Letter of 1 June 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/8323 and Corr.1 (S/10220 and Corr.1). Letter of 10 June 1971 from Israel.
A/8356 (S/10290). Letter of 13 August 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/8401. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1970-15 June 1971, Part One, Chapter 11.
A/8401/Add.1. Introduction to report of Secretary-General, September 1971, Part Two, Chapter IV, paras. 217-229.
A/8402. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1970-15 June 1971, Chapter 2.
A/8541 (S/10403). Report of 30 November 1971 of Secretary-General on activities of his Special Representative to Middle East.
A/8566 (S/10438). Letter of 9 December 1971 from Israel (transmitting reply to 28 November 1971 to proposals by Committee of 10 of OAU).
A/8576 (S/10443). Letter of 10 December 1971 from Egypt (enclosing memorandum to Chairman of Sub-Committee of 4 African Heads of State).
A/8586. Letter of 11 December 1971 from Egypt (transmitting telegram of 7 December 1971 from German Democratic Republic).
A/L.650 and Corr.1 and Add.1,2 and Rev. 1. Afghanistan, Cameroon, Congo, Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Spain, United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia, Zambia: draft resolution and revision.
A/L.651 and Add. 1. Barbados and Ghana: draft resolution.
A/L.652 and Add.1. Costa Rica, Haiti and Uruguay: draft resolution.
A/L.652/Rev.1. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Haiti, Uruguay: revised draft resolution, rejected by Assembly on 13 December 1971, meeting 2016, by recorded vote of 18 in favour to 56 against, with 47 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Barbados, Bolivia, Botswana, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Israel, Kenya, Khmer Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Senegal, Uruguay.

Against: Afghanistan, Albania, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Ceylon, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gambia, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Laos, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago United Kingdom, United States, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Zaire.

A/L.655 and Add.1. Barbados and Ghana: amendments to 21-power draft resolution, A/L.650.
A/L.656. Senegal: amendments to 21-power draft resolution, A/L.650.
A/L.657. Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom: amendments to 21-power draft resolution, A/L.650.

RESOLUTION 2799 (XXVI), as proposed by 21 powers, A/L.650/Rev.1, adopted by Assembly on 13 December 1971 meeting 2016, by recorded vote of 79 to 7, with 36 abstentions:

In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon Ceylon, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Israel, Nicaragua, Uruguay.

Abstaining: Algeria, Australia, Barbados. Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Central African Republic, China, Dahomey, Denmark, Ecuador, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Honduras, Iceland, Ivory Coast, Khmer Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Senegal, Singapore, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, United States, Upper Volta, Zaire.

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned at the continuation of the grave situation prevailing in the Middle East, particularly since the conflict of June 1967, which constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security,

Convinced that Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 should be implemented immediately in all its parts in order to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security,

Determined that the territory of a State shall not be the object of occupation or acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, which is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and to the principles enshrined in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) as well as in the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1970,

Expressing its appreciation of the efforts of the Committee of African Heads of State undertaken in pursuance of the resolution adopted on 23 June 1971 by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its eighth ordinary session,

Gravely concerned at the continuation of Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 5 June 1967,

Having considered the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East,"

1. Reaffirms that the acquisition of territories by force is inadmissible and that, consequently, territories thus occupied must be restored;

2. Reaffirms that the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the application of both the following principles:

(a) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(b) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and its right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to reactivate the mission of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the Middle East in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to reach a peace agreement as envisaged in the Special Representative's aide-memoire of 8 February 1971;

4. Expresses its full support for all the efforts of the Special Representative to implement Security Council resolution 242 (1967);

5. Notes with appreciation the positive reply given by Egypt to the Special Representative's initiative for establishing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

6. Calls upon Israel to respond favourably to the Special Representative's peace initiative;

7. Further invites the parties to the Middle East conflict to give their full co-operation to the Special Representative in order to work out practical measures for:

(a) Guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) Achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) Guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council and to the General Assembly, as appropriate, on the progress made by the Special Representative in the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and of the present resolution;

9. Requests the Security Council to consider if necessary making arrangements, under the relevant Articles of the Charter of the United Nations, with regard to the implementation of resolution 242 (1967).


The status of the cease-fire

Israel-Jordan sector

During 1971, the situation along the Israel-Jordan cease-fire line remained quiet. No complaints were submitted by either country regarding any cease-fire violation, nor did the Security Council meet to consider any complaint in that connexion.

Communications concerning Israel and Egypt

From 11 January to 10 March 1971, the Suez Canal sector was quiet. Reports on the situation there issued by the Secretary-General on 11 January and 2 and 22 February related mainly to the relocation or reopening of United Nations observation posts in the area.

On 10 March, the Secretary-General reported that the situation in the Suez Canal sector had been quiet since 8 August 1970, although during that period there had been a number of flights by both Egyptian and Israeli jet aircraft over the sector. He felt that in the circumstances it was advisable to resume the practice of reporting to the Security Council concerning the Suez Canal sector which had prevailed before 8 August 1970. The Secretary-General hoped that his reports might be helpful during a period when the maintenance of quiet was crucial to efforts to find a peaceful settlement in the whole area. He then reported that although there had been no ground activity in the Suez Canal sector, Israeli aircraft and one unidentified aircraft had crossed the Canal from east to west and that Israeli overflights had been confirmed by several United Nations observation posts.

Supplemental information issued by the Secretary-General between 19 March and 31 December, on the basis of reports received from the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO), reported little or no ground activity, but noted that from time to time there were reports of some aerial activity involving flights by both Egyptian and Israeli aircraft over the sector. On occasion, these flights had taken place over the positions of one party or the other, and charges and counter-charges of cease-fire violations were filed with UNTSO.

Complaints by Israel and Lebanon

On 15 January 1971, Lebanon said that helicopter-borne Israeli armed units had attacked the village of Sarafand located some 43 kilometres north of Lebanon's southern border and, after having been engaged by Lebanese armed forces, had withdrawn at three o'clock that morning. The Israeli authorities had attempted to justify their action by alleging that, on 2 January, six fedayeen coming by boat from that village had landed just south of Lebanon's border and that five of them had been captured. However, investigation by Lebanese authorities had established that Israel had engineered the whole plan. Thus, Israel had first initiated an incident and then used it as a pretext for military action against Lebanon.

Israel stated on 19 January that since 30 December there had been a further intensification of sabotage raids and shelling attacks on Israeli villages carried out from bases inside Lebanon. In all their activities, the terrorists had full support and encouragement from the Lebanese Government. As for the complaint made by Lebanon in its letter of 15 January, Israel said that on 2 January five raiders coming from the Lebanese harbour of Sarafand, which served as a base of operation against Israel, had attempted to land in northern Israel but had been captured. During the night of 14/15 January, an Israeli unit had acted to disable that terrorist base and, in the ensuing encounter, had killed 10 saboteurs and wounded many others. Six Israeli soldiers had been injured. Thus, Israel's action had not been against a civilian village, as alleged by Lebanon.

On 5 February, Lebanon stated that on 11 February Israeli patrols had crossed the Lebanese border and attacked villages in southern Lebanon, blown up some houses and abducted some civilians in another premeditated encroachment upon the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon.

On 8 April, Lebanon charged that on 5 April Israeli patrols, in violation of the Armistice Agreement and in defiance of relevant United Nations resolutions, had crossed the border at three points and had blown up several houses in three different villages.

On 12 April, Israel drew the attention of the Security Council to the intensification of attacks committed against it from Lebanese territory and stated that, between 11 March and 10 April, 19 such attacks had been carried out against Israeli villages by terror organizations from bases in Lebanon, compelling Israel to take measures in self-defence to protect the lives and property of its citizens.

In communications dated 16 and 23 June 11 July, 10 August, and 4 and 20 September 1971, Lebanon submitted complaints that on several occasions Israel had used artillery and mortars to shell border villages in southern Lebanon and had crossed the border at several points to destroy Lebanese houses, civilian property and crops. Many civilians had been killed, wounded or abducted. Lebanon charged also that these new acts of aggression were aimed at disturbing peace and security in southern Lebanon, and at undermining all efforts to establish a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Lebanon protested Israel's violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, its disregard of the United Nations Charter and its disrespect for the pertinent Security Council resolutions.

Israel submitted counter-complaints on 21 and 30 June, 12 August, and 7 and 24 September that terror squads coming from Lebanese territory had attacked civilian installations and villages in Israeli territory on several occasions, causing casualties and property damage. The letters stated that it was a matter of common knowledge that bases from which acts of aggression were launched against Israel were located on Lebanese territory and that those acts had taken place with the knowledge and consent of the Government of Lebanon, as indicated by several press reports and official statements in Lebanon. Israel, which had the right to defend and protect its territory and citizens, pursued a policy based on the reciprocal observance of the cease-fire, which entailed the obligation of Lebanon to prevent armed attacks from its territory against Israel.

Complaints by Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic

On 7 January 1971, the Secretary-General circulated a report received from the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO) regarding an incident that had taken place at United Nations Observation Post Four in the Israel-Syria sector. At 2305 hours GMT on 2 January, United Nations military observers had been held up in their living-caravan by three persons carrying sub-machine guns of an unidentified type. Before leaving, 20 minutes later, the intruders had taken a number of items from the caravan and had ripped the radio communication set. Subsequently, the Chairman of the Israel-Syria Mixed Armistice Commission (ISMAC) had reported the incident to the Syrian delegate, who had promised to inform the Syrian authorities.

An inquiry conducted by UNTSO on 3 January the report continued, had failed to establish the identity of the intruders and the UNTSO findings had been communicated to the authorities of both countries with the request that they provide the results of their inquiries.

On 5 January, Israel had reported that a search conducted on 3 January at the site of the post had revealed tracks of three persons wearing regular Syrian boots leading towards Syrian territory. The Israeli investigators had found some of the items that had been taken from the United Nations caravan. On the following day, the Syrian authorities had informed ISMAC that, as a consequence of their investigations, they could assure the Commission unreservedly that the intruders had not been members of the Syrian regular army. The Chief of Staff of UNTSO reported that, despite inquiries conducted into the incident, it appeared that the identity of the intruders could not be established.

In forwarding the report to the Security Council, the Secretary-General expressed his concern about that type of incident and warned against the serious implications it could entail for the cease-fire observation operation in the sector. The United Nations observers, he added, did not carry arms and depended for their safety on their special status and on the protection provided by the parties to the cease-fire. The Secretary-General concluded by appealing to all concerned to take all possible measures to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.

In a letter dated 18 January, the Syrian Government denied a charge broadcast by Radio Israel to the effect that on the night of 2/3 January, three Syrian regular soldiers had entered United Nations Observation Post Four and stolen some items.

In a letter dated 25 January, Israel stated that an investigation carried out by Israeli authorities following the raid on the observation post had revealed that tracks of three persons wearing regular Syrian boots had led investigators towards Syrian territory. Those findings had been transmitted to the United Nations observers and had been published in the report of 7 January. As the Syrian lines were well guarded by a network of military positions, Israel's letter added, no armed elements could operate from within the Syrian military zone without the knowledge of the Syrian authorities. Syrian responsibility for all violations of United Nations observation posts by elements operating from behind its lines was clearly evident.

In a letter dated 26 January, the Syrian Arab Republic stated that the "investigation" carried out by Israel and its allegation that the Syrian Government had been responsible for all violations of United Nations observation posts were one-sided and constituted an attempt to distort facts. Furthermore, the report of 7 January referred to by Israel had denied the Israeli allegation and had, in fact, concluded that the identity of the armed intruders could not be established.

In a series of reports issued in late June and early July, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO stated that Israeli forces had crossed the limits of the Israeli forward defended localities and, after having penetrated about 800 to 1,000 metres inside Syrian territory, recrossed the cease-fire line. On 22 July, the Chief of Staff reported that the Israeli Liaison Officer had objected to those reports as incorrect. Following verification inquiries conducted by UNTSO into the Israeli complaint, the general conclusion was that although verbal and documentary evidence confirmed the accuracy of the observers' reports, no physical evidence could be found of the reported incursions.

During 1971, the Secretary-General continued to issue reports containing supplemental information he received from the UNTSO Chief of Staff relating to sporadic firing incidents that took place in the Israel-Syria sector and to some aerial activity. The Chief of Staff included in his reports complaints submitted by both Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic to the Chairman of ISMAC regarding cease-fire violations. In their complaints, the parties requested that necessary measures be taken to prevent future violations.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

Communications concerning Israel and Egypt
S/7930/Add.1043. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 11 January 1971.
S/7930/Add.1066, 1085. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2 and 22 February 1971.
S/7930/Add.1104, 1111, 1115, 1117, 1120, 1128, 1130. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 10, 16, 19, 20, 22 and 30 March 1971.
S/7930/Add.1134, 1138, 1144, 1153, 1154, 1162, 1164, 1166, 1168. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2, 6, 11, 19, 20 and 26-29 April 1971.
S/7930/Add.1174, 1179, 1182, 1186, 1188. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 4, 8, 10, 13, and 15 May 1971.
S/7930/Add.1209, 1211, 1220, 1227, 1230, 1232, 1235, 1238. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 3, 5, 14, 21, 23, 24 and 28 June 1971.
S/7930/Add.1244, 1250, 1252, 1256, 1257, 1259, 1262, 1264, 1268, 1270, 1277, 1281. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1, 7, 9, 12-15, 17, 19, 21, 27 and 29 July 1971.
S/7930/Add.1286, 1289, 1292, 1294 and Corr.1, 1300, 1307, 1311, 1314, 1315, 1319, 1320 and Corr.1, 1321, 1325. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30 and 31 August 1971.
S/7930/Add.1329, 1331, 1334, 1337, 1341, 1344, 1348, 1351-1353, 1363. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 18, 20 and 27 September 1971.
S/7930/Add.1368, 1375, 1378, 1381, 1386, 1388, 1390, 1393, 1397, 1400, 1407. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 30 October 1971.
S/7930/Add.1414, 1416, 1422, 1426, 1437, 1441. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 5, 8, 11, 15, 24 and 29 November 1971.
S/7930/Add.1451, 1459. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 8 and 20 December 1971.

Complaints by Israel and Lebanon
S/10078. Letter of 15 January 1971 from Lebanon.
S/10081. Letter of 19 January 1971 from Israel.
S/10101, S/10172 and Corr.1. Letters of 5 February and 8 April 1971 from Lebanon.
S/10175. Letter of 12 April 1971 from Israel.
S/10226. Letter of 16 June 1971 from Lebanon.
S/10231. Letter of 21 June 1971 from Israel.
S/10235. Letter of 23 June 1971 from Lebanon.
S/10244. Letter of 30 June 1971 from Israel.
S/10247, S/10286. Letters of 1 July and 10 August 1971 from Lebanon.
S/10289. Letter of 12 August 1971 from Israel.
S/10305. Letter of 4 September 1971 from Lebanon.
S/10307. Letter of 7 September 1971 from Israel.
S/10329. Letter of 20 September 1971 from Lebanon.
S/10335. Letter of 24 September 1971 from Israel.

Complaints by Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic
S/7930/Add.1031-1042, 1044-1062. Supplemental information received by Secretary- General, dated 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-23 and 25-30 January 1971.
S/7930/Add.1063-1065, 1067-1084, 1086-1092. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 and 22-27 February 1971.
S/7930/Add.1093-1103, 1105-1109, 1110 and Corr.1, 1112-1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1121- 1127, 1129, 1131. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, 22-27 and 31 March 1971.
S/7930/Add.1132, 1133, 1135-1137, 1139-1143, 1145-1152, 1155-1161, 1163, 1165, 1167, 1169. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19-24 and 26-30 April 1971.
S/7930/Add.1170, 1171 and Corr.1, 1172, 1173, 1175-1178, 1180, 1181, 1183-1185, 1187, 1189-1205. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General dated 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-22 and 24-31 May 1971.
S/7930/Add.1206-1208, 1210, 1212-1219, 1221-1226, 1228, 1229, 1231, 1233, 1234, 1236, 1237, 1239-1242. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-19, 21-26 and 28-30 June 1971.
S/7930/Add.1243, 1245-1249, 1251, 1253-1255, 1258, 1260, 1261, 1263, 1265-1267, 1269, 1271-1276, 1278-1280, 1282, 1283. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19-24 and 26-31 July 1971.
S/7930/Add.1284, 1285, 1287, 1288, 1290, 1291, 1293, 1295-1299, 1301-1306, 1308-1310, 1312, 1313, 1316-1318, 1322-1324. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2-7, 9-14, 16-21, 23, 25, 27, 30 and 31 August 1971.
S/7930/Add.1326-1328, 1330, 1332, 1333, 1335, 1336, 1338-1340, 1342, 1343, 1345-1347, 1349, 1350 and Corr.1, 1354-1362, 1364-1366. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-25 and 27-30 September 1971.
S/7930/Add.1367, 1369-1374, 1376, 1377, 1379, 1380, 1382-1385, 1387, 1389, 1391, 1392, 1394-1396, 1398, 1399, 1401-1404, 1405 and Corr.1, 1406. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General dated 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-23 and 25-30 October 1971.
S/7930/Add.1408-1413, 1415, 1417-1421, 1423-1425, 1427-1436, 1438-1444. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, 22-27, 29 and 30 November 1971.
S/7930/Add.1445-1450, 1452-1458, 1460-1470. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, December 1971.
S/10080. Letter of 18 January 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10088. Letter of 25 January 1971 from Israel.
S/10090. Letter of 26 January 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.


The situation in and around Jerusalem and its Holy Places

During 1971, the Security Council and the Secretary-General received a number of communications relating to the status of the City of Jerusalem. The Arab countries in general and Jordan in particular protested the changes in the status of the City, charging that Israel had violated United Nations resolutions in this regard. Israel, for its part, denied the charges. The Secretary-General reported several times during the year on the subject; the Security Council met at the request of Jordan to discuss the matter and on 25 September adopted resolution 298 (1971). (For details, see below.)

Communications and reports
On 8 January 1971, Jordan and Egypt, in a joint letter to the Secretary-General, protested Israeli measures to change the character of the City of Jerusalem and drew attention to a so-called master plan for Jerusalem, which called for an additional 200,000 Jewish people to be settled within five years in the occupied lands in and around the City.

In another letter, dated 17 February, Jordan said that according to information it had received Israeli authorities had bulldozed parts of the premises of Government House--the headquarters of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO)--situated in no man's land in Jerusalem. It requested a report by the Secretary-General on that violation, in accordance with the Security Council's resolutions of 21 May 1968 8/ and 3 July 1969. 9/

On 18 February, Israel declared that United Nations headquarters in Jerusalem had in no way been affected by development activities being undertaken in the City to meet urgent housing needs of the population. In another letter, dated 19 February, Israel stated that in fact it was Jordan that had violated and occupied the compound of United Nations headquarters in Jerusalem on 5 June 1967, and it recalled that the Secretary-General had reported on that issue to the Security Council at its meeting on that day.

On 18 February, the Secretary-General, in accordance with previous resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, submitted a report concerning Jerusalem that included texts of notes by him to Israel, and Israel's replies thereto.

In a note to Israel of 10 December 1970, the Secretary-General reported, he had referred to reports concerning a master plan for an area within and outside the Old City walls in which the Government House area had been classified as a residential area, with land to be set aside for hotels. Representatives of UNTSO had approached Israeli authorities on the matter and had been informed that the plan in question had not yet been made public. The Israeli authorities gave no reply as to whether the plan affected the Government House premises.

In order to meet his responsibilities to the Security Council and the General Assembly in connexion with the status of the City of Jerusalem, the Secretary-General asked for detailed information on and a copy of the reported master plan. He also underscored the importance he attached to the status of the United Nations premises at Government House and sought clarification from Israel as to whether the plan envisaged any development affecting those premises, both as to their current limits and those in effect before June 1967. 10/

In a reply dated 8 January 1971, the Secretary-General reported, Israel had indicated that its position with regard to Government House continued to be the same as had been indicated by Israel in June and August 1967 and that no changes were contemplated in the arrangements made then.

On 26 January, the Secretary-General reported, he had again requested a copy of the reported master plan for Jerusalem, together with detailed information thereon.

Also on 26 January, in a note dealing with the United Nations Government House premises, the Secretary-General said that in so far as the assurances proffered by Israel on 8 January did not safeguard the right of the United Nations to possession of the whole of its Government House premises as constituted on 5 June 1967, they did not cover the obligations of the Secretary-General in the matter.

He went on to say that he had been informed by UNTSO that on 3 January a bulldozer had begun working within the perimeter of the Government House premises as constituted on 5 June 1967. This activity, coinciding with recent press reports about a project to erect housing units and other buildings in the area, indicated a further and serious violation of the inviolability of United Nations premises under the United Nations Charter and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. In view of the irreparable physical change to the premises which the work currently being undertaken might bring about, the Secretary-General, while reserving the right of the United Nations to claim compensation for any ensuing loss or damage, requested that the work be suspended.

The Secretary-General said he continued to maintain that there was no basis for any curtailment of United Nations rights to Government House as constituted on 5 June 1967. Accordingly, in the exercise of his responsibility in the matter, he requested the unreserved return to the United Nations of the remainder of its Government House premises.

In his report, the Secretary-General noted that no reply had been received from Israel to the above two notes.

On 22 February, Jordan and Egypt drew attention to Israel's continued confiscation of Arab land and property and the construction of Israeli settlements, housing, hotels and industrial projects, in violation of General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. The letter added that according to Israeli press reports, Israel was planning to build 3,000 housing units as well as 13 buildings on confiscated Arab land in east Jerusalem, and that Arab inhabitants of that area were being evacuated to be replaced by Jewish families. Those measures appeared to be a prelude to the so-called master plan for Jerusalem, which envisaged the construction of a total of 35,000 units on confiscated private and public Arab lands, designed to accommodate 122,000 new Jewish immigrants in order to make Jerusalem "a Jewish city.

The so-called master plan for Jerusalem, the letter went on, continued to draw sharp criticism from the international community, for it purported to change the demographic situation and character not only of Jerusalem but also of the villages and hills around the City, extending to the towns of Ramallah in the north and Bethlehem in the south.

On 1 March, Israel replied that Jewish and Arab lands alike had been expropriated, without any discrimination, for public development and housing and that some Arab and Jewish owners had already received full compensation. With regard to the existence of a master plan for Jerusalem, Israel said, the preparation of a development plan for any city was a customary procedure of modern urban development throughout the world and the municipal authorities of Jerusalem were doing their best in that direction through consultations with world-renowned experts.

In further protests about alleged confiscation of Arab property by Israel, Jordan informed the Secretary-General on 2 and 8 March that, according to an Israeli press report, Israeli authorities had issued an order transferring the shares of the Electricity Company of the District of Jerusalem--which belonged to the Jordanian municipality--to the Israeli municipality.

By a letter of 5 March, Israel replied that in order to ensure the continuity and operation of electrical service to the people of Jerusalem it was necessary to change the status of certain elements of the public ownership of those services. However, no change had taken place in the ownership status of private persons, Arabs or others.

By a letter dated 2 March, the Syrian Arab Republic recalled that the Secretary-General, in two notes reproduced in his report of 18 February, had asked Israel for information on and a copy of the master plan for Jerusalem. United Nations Members desirous of maintaining the rule of law had been awaiting Israel's replies. Instead, according to press reports Israel had continued to implement its master plan in Jerusalem, including work being carried out within United Nations premises. The Government and people of the Syrian Arab Republic could not keep silent on the fate of the Holy City of Jerusalem, which was being turned into a "zionist exhibition."

By a letter dated 9 March, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Tunisia transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of a resolution on the question of Jerusalem adopted by the International Moslem Organizations, which had met at Mecca, Saudi Arabia, from 11 to 15 February 1971. The resolution urged that efforts be continued for the liquidation of all traces of Israeli aggressions, supported the Palestinian commandos, and called for an end to the continuance of inhuman zionist aggression, in order to save the Holy City of Jerusalem from Judaization and the Arab citizens of the Holy City from becoming refugees.

On 16 March, Israel said in reply that the letter from the seven powers contained allegations that were misleading and reflected the belligerent policies pursued by the Arab States against Israel. In spite of the abnormal conditions in the region and the security problems caused by the belligerent policies of the Arabs, the Moslem institutions in Jerusalem and its Moslem residents and visitors enjoyed the liberty and facilities to pursue their normal activities. Israel rejected the accusation that it was "Judaizing" Jerusalem, the very City in which the Jewish ethos was so deeply marked and where Jews had constituted the majority of the population for generations. Israel treated with reverence all that was related to the Holy Places of all faiths and had made great efforts to ensure their improvement and safety.

On 15 March, Spain stated that Israel's continued occupation of Jerusalem could not justify certain measures of assimilation designed to change the true nature and alter the status of the City. The relevant Security Council resolutions should be strictly complied with.

On 19 March, Israel replied that Spain's letter was one more expression of its pro-Arab policy and denied that Israel had taken any measures of assimilation in Jerusalem.

Spain said on 23 March that Israel had been taking advantage of its occupation of Jerusalem in order to alter the status and character of that City, in clear violation of the relevant United Nations resolutions.

On 29 March, Israel replied that Spain had omitted to mention the aggressions against Jerusalem by Jordan and Egypt and the uprooting of the Jewish quarter and Jewish institutions from the Holy City during the Jordanian occupation. While ignoring those facts, Spain had continued to pursue a pro-Arab policy in Middle East matters.

In its reply on 30 March, Spain noted that Israel had not cited examples of any violations by Jordan or Egypt of United Nations resolutions in so far as they related to the character and status of Jerusalem. Spain was concerned over Israel's attempt to change the true nature of Jerusalem and to alter its status in violation of United Nations resolutions.

On 1 April, Jordan drew attention to reported excavations by Israel in the areas adjacent to the southern and western walls of Haram Esh-Sharif, which were endangering the Al Aqsa Mosque, the Moslem Museum and the El-Fakhariyya Minaret. There were also reports that Israel was planning to enact a law confining the Moslem Holy Places in the Haram Esh-Sharif area to Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock mosques, placing the Plaza of Haram Esh-Sharif and other religious and cultural places, which were held sacred by Moslems all over the world, outside the designation of Holy Places and at the mercy of future illegal Israeli regulations and excavations. Israel's excavations and the contemplated legislation violated the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, of 14 May 1954. They were also contrary to the resolution adopted on 10 October 1962 by the Executive Board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization with regard to cultural properties, particularly in the Old City of Jerusalem, which called on Israel among other things to desist from any archaeological excavations, transfer of cultural properties or any changes in their cultural and historical character.

On 20 April, the Secretary-General issued an addendum to his report of 18 February, containing a further exchange of communications with Israel concerning the status of Jerusalem and United Nations headquarters there. Israel, he said, had replied to his notes of 26 January by a note dated 8 March, in which Israel stated that its position remained as it had been conveyed in various communications on the subject. At the same time, it wished to record reservations to the various legal and other considerations advanced by the Secretary-General, particularly to claims of the United Nations to the occupancy and possession of the whole of the premises of Government House.

In his reply, on 12 April, the Secretary-General had said that, presumably because of the reservations referred to in its note of 8 March, Israel had neither provided a copy of the reported Jerusalem master plan nor any information about it. He also noted that Israel's reply contained neither a direct response to his request to return the whole of the United Nations premises at Government House as constituted on 5 June 1967, nor any precise information on the exact terms of the reservations which Israel held with regard to that request. Furthermore, the reservations in Israel's note had been raised for the first time and had not been mentioned when part of the Government House premises had been returned to the United Nations. In fact, in its letter of 22 August 1967, Israel had not indicated any reservations, although the Secretary-General had expressly preserved the rights of the United Nations to the occupancy and possession of the whole of Government House as constituted when UNTSO was forced to evacuate it on 5 June 1967. He further observed that it was in reliance on the preservation of those United Nations rights that he had authorized the return of UNTSO staff to a lesser area.

The Secretary-General went on to say that, as Israel's reservations related in part to legal considerations, one way of resolving any differences would be to resort to the procedure for settlement provided for in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. In view of Israel's current work within and bordering upon Government House property and the absence of a direct reply to the specific requests contained in his note of 26 January 1971, the Secretary-General was constrained to reiterate his request for the unreserved return to the United Nations of the remainder of its Government House premises.

On 1 June, the Syrian Arab Republic transmitted the text of an appeal made by the spiritual leaders of the Christian community of the Syrian Arab Republic, drawing to the attention of the Christians of the world the illegal measures taken by Israeli authorities in order to "zionize" the City of Jerusalem and to expel its Christian and Moslem inhabitants in violation of United Nations resolutions. In a reply dated 10 June, Israel stated that the 80,000 Arabs then visiting Israeli-held territories and Jerusalem did not seem to give much credence to the Syrian charges.

Further to his reports of 18 February and 20 April, the Secretary- General on 20 August issued another report, containing a further exchange of communications with Israel on the subject of the United Nations premises at Government House in Jerusalem.

The Secretary-General said that on 18 August Israel had informed him that, while it reserved its position as recorded in the 1967 exchange of letters, no changes were contemplated with regard to the situation ensuing from that exchange. On 19 August, the Secretary-General had replied that he had understood Israel's letter to mean that Israel, having already discontinued all construction and other work within the area of the United Nations premises at Government House as constituted on 5 June 1967, would refrain from re-initiating such construction or other work within the area until the difference of opinion reflected in the 1967 exchange of letters had been satisfactorily resolved. If that understanding was incorrect, the Secretary-General reiterated that one way of resolving any differences would be to resort to the procedure for settlement laid down in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

Consideration by Security Council (September 1971)

On 13 September 1971, Jordan requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider Israel's illegal actions in Jerusalem in defiance of Security Council resolutions which--among other things--called on Israel to rescind measures already taken and to desist from further action tending to change the status of Jerusalem. Jordan charged that, contrary to those resolutions and in spite of local and international objections, Israel had continued its illegal and unilateral measures to change the character of the City and its environs; the situation thus created was a direct threat to the character of the City and the surrounding suburbs and villages, to the lives and destiny of its people and to international peace and security.

The Security Council held four meetings on the question, between 16 and 25 September. The representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussion in the Council without the right to vote.

The representative of Jordan said that the measures taken by Israel in Jerusalem were designed to change the status and character of the Holy City and, at the same time, aimed at preventing the conclusion of a just and peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict, in the hope that the cease-fire lines would ultimately become Israel's new borders. Israel was contemplating new legislation to extend the borders of Jerusalem to include, by annexation, three Arab towns and 27 villages, over and above what had already been unilaterally and illegally annexed in June 1967. Furthermore, Israeli attempts to enact a law were reported which would confine Moslem Holy Places in the Haram Esh-Sharif area to Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock mosques.

The Jordanian representative went on to say that many General Assembly and Security Council resolutions had deplored measures of annexation and called on Israel to rescind such measures and to desist from taking action which would alter the status of Jerusalem. However, Israel had shown contempt for those resolutions and still refused to supply the Secretary-General with any details or satisfactory information on the master plan for Jerusalem which envisaged, among other things, development affecting the United Nations premises at Government House. Israel's determination to Judaize Arab Jerusalem had been manifested in legislative, fiscal and urban measures which were imposing on the City an increasingly special character at the expense of the non-Jewish population. In the light of Israel's disregard of General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, and to ensure Israel's respect for them, he urged that the Council invoke whatever sanctions it deemed fit under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. 11/

Israel's spokesman said that Jordan's complaint was a manoeuvre to divert attention from its own internal difficulties. Jordan, which had invaded Jerusalem in 1948 and seized its eastern sector, was now trying to infringe the City's right to normal existence and development. The General Assembly and the Security Council had displayed singular disinterest in Jerusalem's welfare at the most trying and crucial moments. Now that the City was united, the Security Council was being mobilized in an attempt to retard progress and to stifle growth.

With regard to construction work in the City, he noted that city planning was a normal and indispensable element in the development of any city. Building activities in the eastern sector of Jerusalem constituted slum clearance, the reconstruction of the Jewish quarter, the Hebrew University campus and the Hadassah Hospital, and the erection of new housing for Arab and Jewish residents who had been living in slums. In order to accommodate the growth of the City's population--Jewish as well as Arab--land had been acquired and landowners, both Arabs and Jews, were being fully compensated. Contrary to Jordanian allegations, there was no master plan. However, in view of the universal interest in the City, the Mayor of Jerusalem had invited an international group of outstanding individuals to form an advisory board to aid the municipality of Jerusalem. The Israeli authorities, he concluded, had ensured and would ensure the sanctity of the Holy Places, freedom of access to them and the jurisdiction of the various religious communities over them.

The spokesmen for Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia supported Jordan's complaint and maintained that the Council, in the face of Israel's defiance, should put an end to that defiance and take any necessary further steps to implement its resolutions, including the application of Chapter VII of the Charter. Morocco hoped that the Council would decide to dispatch a representative or a mission to determine whether or not Israel was complying with the resolutions adopted on Jerusalem. Saudi Arabia urged the Council to bear in mind that no matter what Israel's contention might be, the fact remained that hundreds of millions in the Arab or Moslem world would not concede that 2 million zionists should have sovereignty over Jerusalem.

The representative of Mali noted that the question of Jerusalem was only one of many aspects of the Middle East conflict; any measure infringing relevant United Nations resolutions would hinder negotiations for a peaceful settlement.

The USSR representative said that the resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly condemning Israel's annexation of the Arab part of Jerusalem were in accordance with the principles of international law based on the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through war. Israel's defiant and negative attitude towards United Nations decisions showed its expansionist and aggressive policy towards the Arab world. Israel's measures in Jerusalem were aimed at changing the Arab nature of the Old City by expelling Arab inhabitants, destroying Arab houses and imposing Israeli settlements in the Arab section.

It was clear, he said, that Israel's plans were intended to undermine the peaceful political settlement envisaged in the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. 12/ Therefore, the Council was duty bound to take more decisive action to compel Israel to respect the will of the international community. He felt that the demand to apply Chapter VII of the Charter against Israel was justifiable, and supported the suggestion to dispatch a special mission to Jerusalem.

Belgium's representative said that at a time when it was still possible to reach a negotiated solution, it was advisable to avoid any discussion which might vitiate attempts made in that respect. Belgium, he said, hoped that the Council would adopt a resolution calling on Israel to abrogate measures aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem, and he suggested that the Secretary-General should submit a report showing how measures taken by Israel violated previous resolutions of the Security Council and the Hague conventions on the laws of war.

The spokesman for France said that a review of events since 1967 showed that Israel was pursuing a policy designed to integrate the Arab city totally and permanently within an administratively unified Jerusalem. No one could deny that such measures might soon lead to an irreversible situation. Israel's policy of annexation was in formal contradiction to United Nations resolutions and violated the rules of international law and the Charter. Israel's policy of fait accompli increased the resentment of the parties concerned, aggravated the tension in the Middle East and jeopardized the chances of a peaceful settlement which the international community had tried so hard to achieve.

The representative of Argentina believed that the concern of the world over Jerusalem was fully justified because of its historical importance to three religious faiths. Until the status of the City could be defined on the basis of respect for historic and religious interests, innovation should not take place there. Israel must adjust its conduct to the requirements of United Nations resolutions and the Security Council must once again reaffirm its position on Jerusalem.

The Polish representative said that developments in Jerusalem were a part of Israel's over-all aggressive policy of military occupation of territories seized as a result of aggression and consolidating such territorial conquests by creating faits accomplis. He urged the Security Council to study the question in the context of its illegality according to the principles of international law, bearing in mind Israel's attitude and actions in disregard of the will of the international community. The Council, he said, should not only reaffirm previous resolutions on the matter but should also consider all measures necessary to ensure their implementation.

In Italy's view, the future of Jerusalem should be determined in accordance with the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations and not through unilateral actions. Israel's measures in the occupied section of Jerusalem were inconsistent with the provisions of international law governing rights and obligations of an occupying power. In particular, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, was, in Italy's opinion, fully applicable to the occupied sections of Jerusalem.

In his capacity as representative of Japan, the President of the Council stated that the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 had clearly emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, a principle which applied also to the situation of Jerusalem. He said that Japan deplored Israel's failure to grant the Secretary-General a detailed description of the so-called master plan and reiterated Japan's position on the desirability of an international regime for the City. He favoured the idea of designating a mission of investigation which would report to the Council on conditions in Jerusalem.

Burundi's representative said that the status of Jerusalem called for respect from all parties concerned, who should do nothing that might in any way contribute to making the situation in the area more dangerous. Burundi believed that the responsibility of the Council lay in re-establishing an atmosphere conducive to prayer and meditation in the Holy City; the United Nations should devise ways of convincing Israel to rescind its decisions concerning the City, including measures for annexation that might become irreversible.

Sierra Leone believed that peace in the Middle East could only be achieved by Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories in accordance with the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. Relying on its military power, Israel had rejected a peaceful settlement and had continued its defiance of the international will. Furthermore, it had been taking measures to change the status of the Holy City without any consideration for the feelings of Christians and Moslems throughout the world. If that policy was not ended, the dreadful result would be an intensification of hostility involving Moslems, Jews and Christians alike.

The representative of Somalia said that in occupied Jerusalem, as in other areas of occupied Arab territory, Israel was following its classic policy of expropriation followed by colonization, of creating faits accomplis in complete disregard of humanitarian principles or principles of international law. Furthermore, Israel's approach was clearly to make Israeli national interest the sole determining factor of the administration of the City. The administrative and legislative measures taken by Israel in Jerusalem violated numerous United Nations resolutions and had undoubtedly hindered a political settlement of the Middle East problem. The Security Council, he stressed, was duty bound to adopt more effective measures and, to take the United Nations one step forward in meeting its responsibilities in that regard, he submitted a draft resolution.

By the preambular part of the Somali draft, the Council would, among other things, recall its own and the General Assembly's earlier resolutions concerning measures and actions by Israel designed to change the status of the Israeli-occupied section of Jerusalem and would reaffirm the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest was inadmissible.

The Council would also note with concern the non-compliance by Israel with the relevant resolutions and would note further that since their adoption Israel had taken further measures designed to change the status and character of the occupied section of Jerusalem.

By the operative part of the draft text, the Council would:

(1) reaffirm its resolutions of 21 May 1968 13/ and 3 July 1969; 14/

(2) deplore the failure of Israel to respect the previous resolutions adopted by the United Nations concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the City;

(3) confirm in the clearest possible terms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations, and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, were totally invalid and could not change that status;

(4) urgently call upon Israel to take no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem which might purport to change the status of the City, or which would prejudice the rights of the inhabitants and the interests of the international community, or a just and lasting peace;

(5) request the Secretary-General, in consultation with the President of the Security Council and using such instrumentalities as he might choose, including a representative or a mission, to report to the Security Council as appropriate and in any event within 60 days on the implementation of the resolution.

The Syrian Arab Republic submitted four amendments to the Somali draft resolution. By the first of these, in the fourth operative paragraph, Israel would be called upon to rescind all previous measures and actions, as well as to take no further steps purporting to change the status of the City.

This amendment was adopted by the Council by 13 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Nicaragua and the United States).

Three other Syrian amendments were withdrawn as a result of appeals by several members. These would have amended the fifth operative paragraph so that the Council would ask the Secretary-General, in consultation with the President of the Security Council and using such instrumentalities as they [rather than he] might choose, including a representative or a mission, to report to the Council as appropriate and in any event within 30 [rather than 60] days on the implementation of the resolution. A new operative paragraph would have been added by which the Council would decide to reconvene without delay to consider the report referred to in the fifth operative paragraph and what further action should be taken under the Charter.

In submitting its amendments, the Syrian Arab Republic said that the Council should have started at the place where the issue was left after the adoption of its resolution of 3 July 1969, to which Israel had never responded. The opposition expressed by many members to Israel's violations of international law and of various United Nations resolutions should have been reflected in a resolution more responsive to the obligations of the Council, which should call upon Member States to recognize the illegality of Israel's actions in Jerusalem and to refrain from giving any form of assistance to Israel. The final step would be the application of sanctions according to Chapter VII of the Charter.

The Council voted separately on the fifth operative paragraph of the Somali text at the request of the USSR and adopted it by 12 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions (Poland, the Syrian Arab Republic and the USSR).

The draft resolution, as amended by the Syrian Arab Republic, was then adopted, on 25 September, by 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention (the Syrian Arab Republic), as resolution 298 (1971).

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)


Subsequent report of Secretary-General

In pursuance of the Security Council's resolution of 25 September 1971, the Secretary-General on 19 November reported that he had consulted with the President of the Council in September on the implementation of the resolution. He had then informed Israel that he intended to nominate a mission of three members of the Council to enable him to report to the Council as requested. He had in mind as members of the mission the representatives of Argentina, Italy and Sierra Leone, whose Governments had signified their willingness to serve. He had reminded Israel that under the terms of the resolution he had a 60-day limit for reporting and therefore was bound to report within that period. On 28 October, he had again drawn Israel's attention to the fact that he would appreciate receiving its comments as soon as possible.

On 11 November, the President of the Council and the Secretary-General orally conveyed to the representative of Israel their concern over the absence of a reply. On 15 November, Israel transmitted a letter containing its views concerning the paragraph of the resolution calling on Israel to rescind all previous measures and actions and take no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem which might purport to change the status of the City or prejudice the rights of the inhabitants, the interest of the international community or a just and lasting peace. However the letter did not touch upon the question of Israel's response to the Secretary-General's proposal for a mission to Jerusalem to enable him to discharge his mandate.

On 16 November, the Secretary-General, after noting that Israel's reply had not referred to the question of a mission, indicated to Israel that since the time-limit for his report would expire on 24 November, he had no alternative but to submit his report to the Security Council without taking any further action to activate the three-member mission.

Consequently, he then informed the Council that he had had no means of obtaining first-hand information in fulfilment of his reporting responsibilities. After careful consideration of the Council's resolution he and the President of the Council had concluded that the best way to fulfil those responsibilities was through a mission of three members of the Council, for which the co-operation of Israel would obviously be required; however, Israel had not indicated willingness to comply with the Council's resolution. In the light of Israel's failure to abide by the Council's decision, he had been unable to fulfil his mandate.

The Secretary-General annexed to his report his exchange of letters with Israel. In its letter of 15 November, Israel pointed out that the restoration of the status of Jerusalem prior to 1967 would involve rescinding the unity, peace and sanctity of the City in order to restore division and conflict. Israel considered it inconceivable that the majority of the Security Council would wish to restore such a situation.

Concerning the suggestion that Israel was planning action to annul the heterogeneous character of the population, Israel gave assurances that the proportions of different ethnic population groups in the City were not expected to change.

As for the interests of the international community, Israel reaffirmed that the protection of the Holy Places was ensured by law and that there was freedom to visit and pray at the Holy Places of the three great faiths. It was Israel's policy to promote unity and thus to contribute to the promotion of the rights of Jerusalem's inhabitants in order to advance the interests of the international community and thus contribute to the promotion of a just and lasting peace.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

Communications and reports
S/10075 (A/8272). Letter of 8 January 1971 from Egypt and Jordan.
S/10123 (A/8281). Letter of 17 February 1971 from Jordan.
S/10124 and Add.1,2 (A/8282 and Add.1,2). Report of 16 February 1971 of Secretary-General, under Security Council resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969) and 271 (1969) and General Assembly resolution 2254 (ES-V), and addenda.
S/10126 (A/8283), S/10127 (A/8284). Letters of 18 and 19 February 1971 from Israel.
S/10130 and Corr.1 (A/8286 and Corr.1). Letter of 22 February 1971 from Egypt and Jordan.
S/10138 (A/8289). Letter of 1 March 1971 from Israel.
S/10139 (A/8290). Letter of 2 March from Jordan.
S/10140 (A/8291). Letter of 2 March 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10146 (A/8295). Letter of 5 March 1971 from Israel.
S/10149 (A/8296). Letter of 8 March 1971 from Jordan.
S/10152 (A/8297). Letter of 9 March 1971 from Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Tunisia (transmitting letter of 22 February 1971 from International Moslem Organizations).
S/10158 (A/8300). Letter 16 March 1971 from Israel.
S/10159 (A/8301). Letter of 15 March 1971 from Spain.
S/10160 (A/8302). Letter of 19 March 1971 from Israel.
S/10163 (A/8303). Letter of 23 March 1971 from Spain.
S/10167 (A/8305). Letter of 29 March 1971 from Israel.
S/10168 (A/8306). Letter of 30 March 1971 from Spain.
S/10169 (A/8307). Letter of 1 April 1971 from Jordan.
S/10215 (A/8318). Letter of 1 June 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10220 and Corr.1 (A/8323 and Corr.1). Letter of 10 June 1971 from Israel.

Consideration by Security Council (September 1971)

Security Council, meetings 1579-1582.
S/10313. Letter of 13 September 1971 from Jordan (request to convene Council).
S/10314, S/10317, S/10319, S/10321-S/10325. Letters of 13-17 September 1971 from Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Mali, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia (requests to participate in Council's discussion).
S/10337. Somalia: draft resolution.
S/10338 and Rev.1. Syrian Arab Republic: amendments and revised amendments to Somali draft resolution, S/10337.

RESOLUTION 298 (1971), as proposed by Somalia, S/10337, and as amended by Syrian Arab Republic, S/10338/Rev.1, adopted by Council on 25 September 1971, meeting 1582, by 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention (Syrian Arab Republic).

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 and the earlier General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967 concerning measures and actions by Israel designed to change the status of the Israeli-occupied section of Jerusalem,

Having considered the letter of the Permanent Representative of Jordan on the situation in Jerusalem and the reports of the Secretary-General, and having heard the statements of the parties concerned on the question,

Reaffirming the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible,

Noting with concern the non-compliance by Israel with the above- mentioned resolutions,

Noting with concern also that since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures designed to change the status and character of the occupied section of Jerusalem,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 252 (1968) and 267 (1969);

2. Deplores the failure of Israel to respect the previous resolutions adopted by the United Nations concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to alter the status of the City of Jerusalem;

3. Confirms in the clearest possible terms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status;

4. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all previous measures and actions and to take no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem which may purport to change the status of the City or which would prejudice the rights of the inhabitants and the interests of the international community, or a just and lasting peace;

5. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the President of the Security Council and using such instrumentalities as he may choose, including a representative or a mission, to report to the Council as appropriate and in any event within sixty days on the implementation of the present resolution.

S/10392. Report of 19 November 1971 of Secretary-General, under Council resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971.


The treatment of the civilian population in
Israeli-occupied territories and related matters

During 1971, the question of the human rights of the civilian population of the Israeli-occupied territories was again considered by United Nations bodies.

The Security Council and the Secretary-General received a number of communications from Arab countries alleging violations of human rights in the territories, and Israeli replies thereto. The Council did not meet on the question during the year.

The first (1970) report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, which had been considered by the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth (1970) session, 15/ was also taken up by the Commission on Human Rights at its 1971 session. Among other things, the Commission--basing itself on the recommendations and conclusions contained in the Special Committee's report--condemned Israel's continued violations of human rights in the occupied territories, including policies aimed at changing the status of those territories. The Commission deplored certain specific policies and practices of Israel, and called on it among other things to comply fully with its obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention, of 12 August 1949, having to do with the protection of civilian persons in time of war.

In its second report and a supplementary report thereto issued later in 1971, the Special Committee noted that certain policies and practices found to exist in the occupied territories had been continued, in some instances on an even wider scale than before. The Special Committee also noted that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had expressed its willingness under certain conditions to assume the role of a protecting power under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, after concluding that all tasks falling to a protecting power under the Conventions could be considered humanitarian functions.

The General Assembly, by a resolution (2851 (XXVI)) adopted on 20 December 1971, noted this ICRC decision with satisfaction. It called upon Israel to rescind all measures and desist from all policies such as annexation of any part of the occupied Arab territories, establishment of Israeli settlements on those territories, and other practices. The Assembly also asked the Special Committee to continue its work, consulting as appropriate with ICRC. Israel was called upon to co-operate with the Special Committee and facilitate its entry into the occupied territories so that it could perform its functions.

Details of these and other related matters are to be found in the sections that follow.

Communications

During 1971, the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General received a number of communications concerning the treatment of the civilian population in territories occupied by Israel. The Arab States complained about Israel's policies in these territories, alleging the arrest, detention, dispossession and expulsion of civilians and confiscation or expropriation of Arab lands. Israel rejected the Arab charges.

In two letters dated 8 January, Jordan complained of arbitrary and continued expulsion by Israel of Arab inhabitants of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of Jordan and said that such measures constituted a link in the chain of Israel's policy to replace the indigenous population with alien elements who settled on confiscated or sequestered Arab land.

On 8 February, Egypt charged that Israel had committed acts of repression and indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population in Sinai and the Gaza Strip. On 9 February, Israel rejected the charges as unfounded and unsubstantiated and reiterated that its policy was to ensure normal life and development for all the inhabitants under its control, including those of the Gaza area and Sinai, despite the efforts of Arab terrorist organizations to make life intolerable for the local populations.

On 10 February, the representatives of 14 Arab States charged that Israel was intensifying its oppressive measures against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by imposing long and intolerable curfews in several areas. Moreover, several thousand Arab inhabitants had been arrested and taken to detention areas in the Sinai Desert, where they had suffered cruel interrogation and inhuman punishment. Israel rejected those charges on 11 February and stated that the repetition of allegations by the 14 Arab States had not brought those allegations nearer reality.

By a letter dated 12 February, Jordan and Lebanon transmitted a report that 10 Israeli soldiers had been tried for unjustified violence in the Gaza Strip and that three officers had been reprimanded for having failed to quell excesses committed by soldiers belonging to their unit.

In a reply dated 19 February, Israel said that the Arab Governments, particularly Jordan and Lebanon, had been directly responsible for the acts of terror and murder carried out in the Gaza area because they allowed the existence of bases on their territory from which terrorist operations had been carried out. The Israeli Government had no choice but to take measures to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the population of the Gaza area and to maintain public order there.

On 26 February, Jordan stated that Israel, in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and in disregard of United Nations resolutions, had arbitrarily confiscated lands and carried out mass transfers of the population within the occupied territories. The Israeli Military Governor had informed leaders of villages north of Ramallah that Israel intended to confiscate lands with the aim of resettling a number of Palestinian refugees from the Gaza area. On 26 March, Jordan said that between 8 December 1970 and 24 February 1971 111 Arab inhabitants from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of Jordan had been forcibly expelled and deported to the East Bank of Jordan under inhuman conditions.

On 3 March, Israel denied Jordan's allegation of 26 February that confiscation or expropriation of lands had occurred in the villages cited by Jordan and said that it had no intention of taking such steps in the future.

On 21 May, Jordan charged that Israel continued to intimidate, harass and suppress the inhabitants of the occupied territories, confiscating their property and deporting them in great numbers to the East Bank of Jordan. On 25 May, Israel replied that because of its policy to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas referred to in the Jordanian letter, it had taken steps to prevent terrorism and to hinder individuals engaged in terrorist activities from disturbing peace in those areas.

On 28 May, the Syrian Arab Republic stated that in violation of relevant United Nations resolutions and of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Israel had continued its policy of colonizing Arab lands with intensive settlement, the demolition of Syrian towns and villages in the Golan Heights and the forcible eviction of the inhabitants from that area.

On 8 June, the Syrian Arab Republic further stated that, according to reports published by competent organizations, Israel had been barring the distribution by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) of medicaments to the population in occupied territories. That report had been confirmed by a resolution adopted by the twenty-fourth World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) on 18 May, which had drawn attention to Israel's violation of the basic human rights of the refugees, displaced persons and inhabitants of the occupied territories, constituting a severe impediment to their health, and had called upon Israel to refrain from any interference with the activities of ICRC in the occupied territories.

On 10 June, Israel replied that the charges contained in the Syrian letters only reflected the belligerent attitude of the Syrian Arab Republic towards Israel and towards the peace-making efforts under the auspices of the Secretary-General's Special Representative to the Middle East, Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring. With regard to the resolution of the World Health Assembly accusing Israel of barring the distribution of medicaments, Israel denied the charge and stated that the resolution had been adopted by only 43 member States; the majority of whose membership had dissociated itself from the text. The charge had also been denied by ICRC in a letter to WHO.

Replying on 15 June, the Syrian Arab Republic said that Israel's policy of lawlessness had been condemned or deplored in no less than 39 United Nations resolutions since 14 June 1967. On 15 March 1971, the Commission on Human Rights had condemned Israel for its continued violations of human rights in the occupied territories, including its policies aimed at changing the status of those territories. Moreover, since 1 July 1970, the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine had reported numerous acts of aggression invariably committed by Israel against the Syrian Arab Republic. Unable to reject any of the facts brought to the attention of the Security Council concerning its activities in the occupied Golan Heights, Israel had sought to veil its war crimes and crimes against humanity by referring to Arab resistance to Israeli occupation in the West Bank of Jordan. In citing a letter from ICRC to refute the resolution of the World Health Assembly, Israel had ignored the fact that the ICRC letter had not contested the paragraph of the resolution drawing Israel's attention to the violations of basic human rights of the refugees, displaced persons and inhabitants of the occupied territories that constituted a serious impediment to their health.

On 17 June, Israel stated that the Syrian Arab Republic's reply was a reaction of its warfare against the rights of the Jewish people to equality with other nations. The Syrian Arab Republic had rejected the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 16/ calling for peace with Israel, had refused to participate in the peace-making efforts of Ambassador Jarring, had continued to wage terror warfare against Israel and had cruelly oppressed the Jewish community of the Syrian Arab Republic.

With regard to the resolution of the Human Rights Commission alleging violations of human rights in Israeli-controlled territory, Israel pointed out that the majority of Commission members had refused to support that resolution and that only representatives of Arab, Soviet and Moslem States and their traditional followers had voted for it. Such resolutions, Israel added, clearly demonstrated the impossibility of dealing with the Middle East situation equitably and effectively by means of United Nations resolutions not based on agreement of the parties to the conflict.

In a letter dated 20 July regarding the activities of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, Israel noted that the Special Committee continued to serve as a tool of Arab propaganda, dissipating United Nations funds on visits to Arab capitals and disseminating falsehoods regarding the situation in Israeli-held territories. The letter quoted from a statement by the Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs to the effect that the Special Committee was gathering false testimony on Israel's alleged misdeeds against its Arab inhabitants, but that the hundreds of visitors to Israel were the best eyewitnesses to the true picture.

In a letter dated 16 August, Egypt drew attention to the deteriorating situation in occupied Gaza as a result of Israel's systematic campaigns to terrorize and coerce the area's lawful inhabitants. The Israeli occupation forces, the letter said, were resorting to forcible expulsion in order to depopulate the area--a process aimed at changing the demographic structure of the occupied Arab territories with a view to annexing them. The United Nations was urged to take the necessary steps to end Israel's breaches of law, morality and international peace and security.

In a letter dated 19 August, Israel replied that a campaign of indiscriminate terror in the Gaza area had been instigated and supported by Egypt and other Arab States, whose main victims had been local Arab inhabitants. The aim was to spread violence and insecurity and to keep the Arab population in conditions of misery and congestion created during the Egyptian occupation. Consequently, Israel had been compelled to take measures to ensure safety and security in the refugee camps, requiring the construction of access roads within the camps and involving in certain cases the demolition of houses. Alternate housing had been provided and the evacuees had been given compensation for any expenses incurred.

On 18 September, Egypt transmitted the text of a telegram to the Secretary-General from the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization concerning the situation in Gaza resulting from Israeli acts of terror, harassment, mass imprisonment, deportation and displacement of its people.

Declaration of Human Rights Commission

The 1970 report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, which had been considered by the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth (1970) session, 17/ was also studied by the Commission on Human Rights at its twenty-seventh (1971) session. On 15 March, the Commission adopted a resolution based on the recommendations and conclusions contained in the 1970 report.

Among other things, the Commission condemned Israel's continued violations of human rights in the occupied territories, including policies aimed at changing the status of the territories, and condemned specifically the following policies and practices of Israel: (a) denial of the right of the refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes; (b) resort to collective punishment; (c) the deportation and expulsion of the citizens of the occupied territories; (d) arbitrary arrest and detention of the citizens of the occupied territories; ( e) ill-treatment and torture of prisoners; (f) destruction and demolition of villages, town quarters, houses, and confiscation and expropriation of property; (g) evacuation and transfer of sections of the population of the occupied territories; and (h) transfer of parts of its own civilian population into the occupied territories.

The Commission strongly deplored Israel's policies in the occupied territories aimed at placing the population in a general state of repression, fear and deprivation, and particularly deplored: (a) requisition of hospitals and their transformation into police stations; (b) abrogation of the national laws and interference with the judicial system; and (c) refusal to allow use of the textbooks approved by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization for schools in the occupied territories, and the insistence on forcing upon school children an alien system of education.

The Commission again called upon Israel: to comply fully with its obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (having to do with the protection of civilian persons in time of war); to enable forthwith the refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes; and to heed and implement the many resolutions adopted by United Nations organs and the specialized agencies for the safeguarding of human rights in the occupied territories.

The Commission reaffirmed that all measures taken by Israel to colonize the occupied territories, including occupied Jerusalem, were completely null and void and declared that Israel's continued and increasing violations of the human rights of the population of the occupied territories--and its deliberate and persistent refusal to abide by its legal obligations under the United Nations Charter, international law, and the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949--indicated the necessity of collective action on the part of the international community to ensure respect for the human rights of the population of the occupied territories.

The International Committee of the Red Cross was urged by the Commission to co-operate with United Nations organs, and particularly with the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories in the fulfilment of its task to ensure the safeguarding of the human rights of the population of the occupied territories, and to inform the Human Rights Commission at its 1972 session of the steps taken. The Secretary-General was asked to give wide publicity to United Nations documents dealing with the violations of human rights in the occupied territories, and in particular to the report of the Special Committee, and to use United Nations information media in disseminating information on the conditions of the population of the occupied territories, the refugees and displaced persons.

The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories carried out further investigations from 7 to 16 July 1971. It held meetings in Amman (Jordan), Beirut (Lebanon), Geneva (Switzerland) and New York; 49 witnesses were heard and written received. Its second report was issued on 5 October 1971 and a supplementary report on 10 December.

The Special Committee noted that since the presentation of its first report in 1970 certain policies and practices found to exist in the occupied territories had been continued, in some instances on an even wider scale than before, especially with regard to the policy of encouraging the movement of Israeli settlers into settlements in the occupied territories.

The practice of deporting civilians from the occupied territories had continued unabated, the Special Committee reported and it recorded its grave concern that this practice, together with the policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories, seemed calculated to eliminate an identifiable Palestinian community altogether from those territories.

For these reasons, the Special Committee reiterated the recommendations it had made in 1970: that the States whose territory was occupied by Israel appoint immediately either a neutral State or States, or an international organization offering all guarantees of impartiality and effectiveness, to safeguard the human rights of the population of the occupied territories; that suitable arrangements be made for the proper representation of the interests of the large population in the occupied territories which had not been given the opportunity of exercising the right of self-determination; and that a neutral State or international organization be nominated by Israel and be associated in this arrangement.

The Special Committee further recommended that the State or States or international organization duly nominated under this arrangement might be authorized to undertake the following activities: (a) to secure the scrupulous implementation of the provisions relating to human rights contained in the third and fourth Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (the third Convention having to do with the treatment of prisoners of war the fourth Convention with the treatment of civilian persons in time of war) and particularly to investigate allegations of violations of the human rights provisions of these Conventions or of other applicable international instruments; (b) to ensure that the population of the occupied territories was treated in accordance with the applicable law, and (c) to report on its work to the States concerned and to the General Assembly.

In its supplementary report issued on 10 December, the Special Committee took note of a statement that had been made by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to the effect that it was willing under certain conditions to assume the role of a protecting power under the Geneva Conventions. The Special Committee noted that ICRC had expressed its readiness to assume these functions after giving careful consideration to the question of the reinforcement of the implementation of the existing Geneva Conventions and arriving at the conclusion that all tasks falling to a protecting power under the Conventions could be considered humanitarian functions.

The Special Committee therefore modified its original recommendations and recommended that the General Assembly might: (a) request the Secretary-General to inform the parties concerned of ICRC's readiness to take upon itself all the functions envisaged for protecting powers in the Geneva Conventions and to invite them to avail themselves of the services of ICRC in dealing with the application of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions in the occupied territories in the Middle East, (b) request ICRC to consider the need for keeping the United Nations fully informed, through the Secretary-General, of its activities as a protecting power, in addition to reporting to the parties concerned; and (c) reconsider the mandate of the Special Committee as to whether or not there was need for the continuation of its activities once ICRC began in fact to function as a protecting power.

On 20 December 1971, at its twenty-sixth session, the General Assembly adopted a resolution (2851 (XXVI)) on the 1971 reports of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories.

By the preambular parts of this text, the Assembly among other things expressed its grave concern about the violations of the human rights of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. The Assembly considered that the system of investigation and protection was essential for ensuring effective implementation of international instruments, such as the 1949 (fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and regretted that the relevant provisions of that Convention had not been implemented by the Israeli authorities. The Assembly also recalled that States parties to that Convention had undertaken not only to respect but also to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances.

The Assembly then noted with satisfaction that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had concluded that all tasks falling to a protecting power under the 1949 Geneva Conventions could be considered humanitarian functions and ICRC had declared itself ready to assume all the functions envisaged for protecting powers in the Conventions.

By the operative part of the text, the Assembly among other things strongly called upon Israel to rescind forthwith all measures and to desist from all policies and practices such as: (a) the annexation of any part of the occupied Arab territories; (b) the establishment of Israeli settlements on those territories and the transfer of parts of Israel's civilian population into the occupied territory, (c) the destruction and demolition of villages, quarters and houses and the confiscation and expropriation of property; (d) the evacuation, transfer, deportation and expulsion of the inhabitants of the occupied Arab territories, (e) the denial of the right of the refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes; (f) the ill-treatment and torture of prisoners and detainees; and (g) collective punishment.

The Assembly then called upon Israel to permit all persons who had fled from the occupied territories or had been deported or expelled therefrom to return to their homes. It reaffirmed that all measures taken by Israel to settle the occupied territories, including occupied Jerusalem, were completely null and void.

Israel was called on by the Assembly to comply fully with its obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and States parties to the Convention were asked to do their utmost to ensure that Israel respected and fulfilled such obligations.

The Assembly asked the Special Committee--pending the early termination of Israeli occupation of Arab territories--to continue its work and to consult as appropriate with ICRC to ensure the safeguarding of the welfare and human rights of the population of the occupied territories. It urged Israel to co-operate with the Special Committee and to facilitate its entry into the occupied territories so that it could perform its functions.

The resolution was adopted on the recommendation of the Assembly's Special Political Committee, which approved it on 16 December by a roll-call vote of 48 to 16, with 42 abstentions, on the basis of a proposal by Mali and Mauritania. Amendments proposed by Indonesia and Nigeria were accepted by the sponsors. The resolution was adopted by the Assembly on 20 December by a recorded vote of 53 to 20, with 46 abstentions, as resolution 2851 (XXVI).

(For text of resolution and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

During the debate, the Chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories informed the Special Political Committee that Israel had continued to refuse to receive the Special Committee--nor had it furnished the evidence which it claimed to have in rebuttal of allegations made before the Special Committee.

The Special Committee, he stressed, had sought to discharge its duty by separating the humanitarian aspects of the problem from political and other considerations. It was not the purpose of the Special Committee to indict any of the parties to the conflict, but to verify the true nature of Israel's policies and practices as they affected the human rights of the population of the occupied territories.

In the Special Committee's view, he said, the most important development since the adoption of its second report had been the statement of ICRC that it was read to assume the functions envisaged for protecting powers in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In view of the fact that Israel had allowed ICRC to function within the occupied territories, it was desirable and even urgent that arrangements be made to enable ICRC to begin forthwith to exercise the functions of a protecting power in the occupied territories.

Spokesmen for the Arab States--including Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Republic, Morocco, Sudan the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen--commended the Special Committee for its report, which they considered objective and impartial, and condemned Israel for persisting in its categorical refusal to co-operate with the Special Committee or allow it to visit the occupied territories.

Iran, among others, found the report alarming in its description of mass expulsions, the demolition of whole villages and unnecessary sufferings inflicted on a population which, in a single generation, had been subjected to the consequences of three wars. Jordan, Sudan and others deplored the fact that Israel, while continuing to defy United Nations resolutions and pursuing its systematic policy of colonization, resorted to all kinds of manoeuvres to obstruct the humanitarian missions of the United Nations. It was clear that Israel intended to transform the military occupation into a permanent condition. The plight of the Palestinians and the Arab population of the Israeli-occupied territories was of concern not only to the Arab people but to the whole of mankind.

Many Members, including Czechoslovakia, India, Mali, Poland, Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and the USSR, shared the view of the Special Committee that the fundamental violation of the human rights of the Arab population of the occupied territories lay in the very fact of occupation, and that the most effective way of safeguarding the human rights of the population was to end the occupation itself.

The USSR representative said that for four and a half years Israel had committed outrages in the Arab lands it had illegally seized; the facts showed that there was almost no article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which the Israeli aggressor had not violated. It was the duty of the United Nations to condemn Israel's actions and call upon it to end its policy of aggression and expansionism, to withdraw its troops from the occupied Arab territories and to implement United Nations decisions relating to a peaceful political settlement in the Middle East. The USSR, he said, pursued a consistent policy of providing broad assistance to the Arab Governments so they could defend their legitimate national rights and interests.

Turkey stated that it could not condone the acquisition of territorial and political advantage through the use of force. It could not tolerate the measures taken by Israel with a view to changing the status of Jerusalem or the other occupied territories by means of a fait accompli. Furthermore, the rights of several thousands of innocent persons living under military occupation should be a matter of prime concern; pending the final settlement, a way should be found to alleviate their suffering.

The spokesman for Israel said that the eagerness of the Special Committee to serve as a tool of Arab propaganda was even more obvious than in its earlier report. The current report was politically oriented, ignoring or misrepresenting the facts and full of tendentious suggestions and proposals. The language of the Special Committee's terms of reference had predetermined the conclusions the Special Committee was expected to reach and had completely ignored the problem of discrimination and violation of human rights in Jewish communities in Arab lands, especially since 1967. None of the three States serving on the Special Committee maintained diplomatic relations with Israel and all had espoused the Arab cause. In those circumstances, he said, it was obvious that Israel had not found it possible to extend its co-operation to the Special Committee or engage in a debate on the details of the "evidence" adduced before it or the conclusions reached by it.

After giving details of Israeli administration in the occupied territories, the Israeli representative said that the present administration would come to an end when final boundaries were established. In the meantime, Israel was doing its utmost to administer the territories in a liberal and enlightened manner, by respecting the human rights of the inhabitants and promoting their welfare. Israel had no desire to exploit or assimilate the population of the territories or change their way of life. Approval of the Special Committee's report would, he said, serve the purposes of Arab propaganda, exacerbate artificial hatred and obstruct peace-making efforts.

The Byelorussian SSR drew a parallel between what it described as the policies of racial and national superiority pursued by South Africa and by Israel: Israel was pursuing a policy similar to the policy of Bantustans in South Africa. It had among other things set up internment camps in which not just individuals but whole families were detained. While the opponents of apartheid were persecuted and maltreated in South Africa, similar persecution existed in the Israeli-occupied territories. Just as South Africa continued to receive arms and technical assistance in spite of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, Israel, too, benefited from the co-operation of certain Western countries. Not only did South African racism and Israeli zionism have many features in common, but the attitudes of the imperialist powers towards them were identical.

The representative of Mali believed that Israel's policy, far from ensuring the security that country sought, served only to aggravate the violence around it and would lead the Middle East and the world to disaster. He hoped that ICRC'S decision to assume the functions of a protecting power under the Geneva Conventions would help to ensure the full implementation in the occupied territories of all the provisions of the international instruments concerning respect for human rights.

India's spokesman said that the problem of the Arab refugees and their return to their homes and the question of investigating Israeli practices affecting human rights could not be separated from the basic question of the illegal occupation of Arab territories by Israel. Israel was again trying to divert the Assembly's attention from the disturbing evidence produced by the Special Committee. He wondered how Israel could refuse to co-operate with the Special Committee and, at the same time, challenge its source of information. India, he said, rejected all Israeli excuses for not withdrawing from the territories occupied as a result of the 1967 aggression and thought that the Special Committee should continue its work so that the Israeli practices would continue to be exposed.

The United States believed that any approach to the problem must take into account any evidence that violations of human rights had occurred on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It had opposed the establishment of the Special Committee because its investigations were to be restricted to the inhabitants of the Israeli-occupied territories while ignoring the condition of Jewish minorities in certain States in the area of con to one group of people. It could not support extension of the Special Committee's mandate.

During the debate, in accordance with the practice established at previous sessions, the Special Political Committee heard a statement by a representative of the "Palestine Arab delegation."

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

Communications
S/10073 (A/8270), S/10074 (A/8271). Letter of 8 January 1971 from Jordan.
S/10075 (A/8272). Letter of 8 January from Egypt and Jordan.
S/10105. Letter of 8 February 1971 from Egypt.
S/10107. Letter of 9 February 1971 from Israel.
S/10111. Letter of 10 February 1971 from Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Morocco, Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen.
S/10113. Letter of 11 February 1971 from Israel.
S/10119 (A/8280). Letter of 12 February 1971 from Jordan and Lebanon.
S/ 10128 (A/8285). Letter of 19 February 1971 from Israel.
S/10133 (A/8287). Letter of 26 February 1971 from Jordan.
S/10142 (A/8293). Letter of 3 March 1971 from Israel.
S/10155 (A/8299), S/10165 (A/8304), S/10803 (A/8315). Letters of 12 and 26 March and 21 May 1971 from Jordan.
S/10210 (A/8316). Letter of 25 May 1971 from Israel.
S/10213 (A/8317), S/10219 (A/8321). Letter of 28 May and 8 June 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10220 and Corr.1 (A/8323 and Corr.1). Letter of 10 June 1971 from Israel.
S/10224 (A/8324). Letter of 15 June 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10228 (A/8325). Letter of 17 June 1971 from Israel.
S/10232 (A/8326). Letter of 21 June 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10234 (A/8327). Letter of 23 June 1971 from Israel.
S/10238 and Corr.1 (A/8329 and Corr. 1). Letter of 25 June 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10256 (A/8335). Letter of 25 June 1971 from Iraq.
S/10270 (A/8343), S/10271 (A/8344). Letter of 20 and 21 July 1971 from Israel.
S/10272. Letter of 13 July 1971 from Executive Secretary of Organization of African Unity (OAU) to United Nations (transmitting resolutions adopted by 8th Assembly of Heads of State and Government of OAU).
S/10278 (A/8347). Letter of 30 July 1971 from Iraq
S/10293 (A/8357). Letter of 16 August 1971 from Egypt.
S/10295 (A/8363). Letter of 19 August 1971 from Israel.
S/10328 (A/8395). Letter of 18 September 1971 from Egypt (transmitting telegram of 17 September 1971 from Executive Committee of Palestine Liberation Organization).

Decision of Human Rights Commission
E/4949. Report of Commission on Human Rights on its 27th session, 22 February-26 March 1971, Geneva, Switzerland, Chapters IV and XIX (resolution 9 (XXVIII)).
E/L.1395. Note of 5 May 1971 by Secretary-General (transmitting communication from International Committee of Red Cross).

Consideration by General Assembly

General Assembly--26th session
Special Political Committee, meetings 798-803.
Fifth Committee, meeting 1488.
Plenary meeting 2027.
A/8270 (S/10073), A/8271 (S/10074). Letters of 8 January 1971 from Jordan.
A/8272 (S/10075). Letter of 8 January 1971 from Egypt and Jordan.
A/8279. Letter of 11 February 1971 from Jordan (transmitting letter of 10 February 1971 from Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Morocco, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen (S/10111)).
A/8280 (S/10119). Letter of 12 February 1971 from Jordan and Lebanon.
A/8285 (S/10128). Letter of 19 February 1971 from Israel.
A/8287 (S/10133). Letter of 26 February 1971 from Jordan.
A/8293 (S/10142). Letter of 3 March 1971 from Israel.
A/8299 (S/10155), A/8304 (S/10165), A/8315 (S/10203). Letters of 12 and 26 March and 21 May 1971 from Jordan
A/8316 (S/10210). Letter of 25 May 1971 from Israel.
A/8317 (S/10213), A/8321 (S/10219). Letter of 28 May and 8 June 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/8323 and Corr.1 (S/10220 and Corr. 1). Letter of 10 June 1971 from Israel.
A/8324 (S/10224). Letter of 15 June 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/8325 (S/10228). Letter of 17 June 1971 from Israel.
A/8326 (S/10232). Letter of 21 June 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/8327 (S/10234). Letter of 23 June 1971 from Israel.
A/8329 and Corr.1 (S/10238 and Corr.1). Letter of 25 June 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/8335 (S/10256). Letter of 25 June 1971 from Iraq.
A/8343 (S/10270), A/8344 (S/10271). Letter of 20 and 21 July 1971 from Israel.
A/8347 (S/10278). Letter of 30 July 1971 from Iraq.
A/8357 (S/10293). Letter of 16 August 1971 from Egypt.
A/8363 (S/10295). Letter of 19 August 1971 from Israel.
A/8365 (S/10300). Letter of 25 August 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
A/8389 and Corr.1,2 and Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1,2. Report of Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of Population of Occupied Territories. Note by Secretary-General, and addendum.
A/8395 (S/10328). Letter of 18 September 1971 from Egypt (transmitting telegram of 17 September 1971 from Executive Committee of Palestine Liberation Organization).
A/8401. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1970-15 June 1971, Part One, Chapter l D.
A/8402. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1970-15 June 1971 Chapter 2 B.
A/8472. Letter of 15 October 1971 from Israel.
A/8478. Letter of 21 October 1971 from Jordan.
A/SPC/149. Letter of 22 October 1971 from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (request for hearing of "Palestine Arab delegation").
A/SPC/L.235. Mali and Mauritania: draft resolution, as revised by Nigeria (A/SPC/L.237, as orally amended), and as orally amended by sponsors and by Indonesia, approved by Special Political Committee on 16 December 1971, meeting 803, by roll-call vote of 48 to 16, with 42 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Ceylon, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Israel, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Nicaragua, United States, Uruguay, Zaire.

Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Dahomey, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Swaziland, Sweden, Uganda, United Kingdom, Upper Volta, Venezuela.

A/SPC/L.236, A/C.511426, A/8636. Administrative and financial implications of drain resolution recommended by Special Political Committee in A/8630. Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.
A/SPC/L.237. Nigeria: amendments to 2-power draft resolution, A/SPC/L.235.
A/8630. Report of Special Political Committee.

RESOLUTION 2851 (XXVI), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8630, adopted by Assembly on 20 December 1971, meeting 2027, by recorded vote of 53 to 20, with 46 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Ceylon, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Barbados, Bolivia, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Israel, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Swaziland, United States, Uruguay, Zaire.

Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Dahomey, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, Upper Volta, Venezuela.

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Bearing in mind the provisions and principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, Recalling Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967 and 259 (1968) of 27 September 1968, as well as other pertinent resolutions of the United Nations,

Having considered the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories,

Gravely concerned about the violations of the human rights of the inhabitants of the occupied territories,

Considering that the system of investigation and protection is essential for ensuring effective implementation of the international instruments, such as the aforementioned Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, which provide for respect for human rights in armed conflicts,

Noting with regret that the relevant provisions of that Convention have not been implemented by the Israeli authorities,

Recalling that, in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, the States parties have undertaken not only to respect but also to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances,

Noting with satisfaction that the International Committee of the Red Cross, after giving careful consideration to the question of the reinforcement of the implementation of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, has arrived at the conclusion that all tasks falling to a protecting Power under those Conventions could be considered humanitarian functions and that the International Committee of the Red Cross has declared itself ready to assume all the functions envisaged for protecting Powers in the Conventions,

1. Commends the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories and its members for their efforts in performing the task assigned to them;

2. Strongly calls upon Israel to rescind forthwith all measures and to desist from all policies and practices such as:

(a) The annexation of any part of the occupied Arab territories;

(b) The establishment of Israeli settlements on those territories and the transfer of parts of its civilian population into the occupied territory;

(c) The destruction and demolition of villages, quarters and houses and the confiscation and expropriation of property;

(d) The evacuation, transfer, deportation and expulsion of the inhabitants of the occupied Arab territories;

(e) The denial of the right of the refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes;

(f) The ill-treatment and torture of prisoners and detainees;

(g) Collective punishment;

3. Calls upon the Government of Israel to permit all persons who have fled the occupied territories or have been deported or expelled therefrom to return to their homes;

4. Reaffirms that all measures taken by Israel to settle the occupied territories, including occupied Jerusalem, are completely null and void;

5. Calls upon the Government of Israel to comply fully with its obligations under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;

6. Requests the Special Committee, pending the early termination of Israeli occupation of Arab territories, to continue its work and to consult as appropriate with the International Committee of the Red Cross in order to ensure the safeguarding of the welfare and human rights of the population of the occupied territories;

7. Urges the Government of Israel to co-operate with the Special Committee and to facilitate its entry into the occupied territories in order to enable it to perform the functions entrusted to it by the General Assembly;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Special Committee with all the necessary facilities for the continued performance of its tasks;

9. Requests all States parties to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to do their utmost to ensure that Israel respects and fulfils its obligations under that Convention;

10. Requests the Special Committee to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arises thereafter;

11. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its twenty-seventh session an item entitled "Report (or reports) of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories."


Other matters relevant to the Middle East situation

Interference with international civil aviation

By a letter dated 8 October 1971, Israel transmitted the text of a letter it had addressed on 30 September to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in which it was stated that, between 23 August and 3 September 1971, two Arab terrorists had attempted to bring about the destruction in flight of an aircraft belonging to El Al, the national airline of Israel. It was Israel's belief that further acts of sabotage were contemplated and it therefore urged ICAO to take the necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of acts of violence against international civil aviation that jeopardized the safety of persons and property, gravely affected the operations of the international air services and undermined public confidence in the safety of civil aviation.

Other communications

Several communications were received by the Secretary-General during the year--for transmittal to the Security Council--concerning the situation in the Middle East.

By a letter dated 28 February 1971, the USSR transmitted the text of a statement of the USSR Government concerning the situation in the Middle East. The statement noted that on 21 February Israel had said that it refused to commit itself to withdrawal from the occupied territories of Arab States, in particular from the territory of Egypt, thus showing its unwillingness to assume a part of the commitments required for a political settlement in accordance with the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. 18/

On 4 March, Bulgaria transmitted the text of a statement, issued by the Bulgarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in which it was stated that Egypt's readiness to conclude a peace treaty with Israel and Egypt's constructive proposals provided a basis for a political solution of the Middle East crisis. However, Israel's rejection of those proposals and its refusal to withdraw its troops from occupied Arab territories had shown that Israel was persisting in its policy of aggression and its defiance of the relevant United Nations resolutions.

By a note dated 11 March, Iran transmitted the text of a statement issued by the Iranian Government in which, among other things, it reiterated its position that the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories was an essential factor for the establishment of peace in the Middle East. It welcomed the positive attitude taken by Egypt towards implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 and hoped that Israel would reciprocate by taking positive steps in the direction of peace and regional tranquillity so that an agreement might be reached. It warned that if Israel were to persist in maintaining its negative attitude, Iran would have no alternative but to condemn such an attitude.

By a letter dated 6 May, Iraq transmitted the text of a letter addressed to the Secretary-General by the Grand Rabbi of the Jewish community in Iraq, which stated that Israel had been waging a vicious campaign against Iraq and its Jewish citizens. The Grand Rabbi maintained that there was a vast difference between zionism--a political and racial ideology--and Judaism, one of the world's major religions. Zionism had all too often done Judaism and its followers a disservice by distorting its conceptions and history and by resorting to violence against Iraqi Jews, in order to force them to emigrate to Israel. Zionism could never change the loyalty to Iraq of Jewish Iraqi citizens by involving them in the whirlpool of dual allegiance.

On 13 July, the Executive Secretary of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) transmitted among others the texts of resolutions adopted by the Assembly of African Heads of State and Government at its eighth session held at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 21 to 23 June 1971. Among other things, OAU called for immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories and expressed its full support for the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General in his efforts to implement the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

In a letter dated 13 August, the Syrian Arab Republic referred to a reported decision by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to grant Israel a loan of $30 million to expand its highway network. The loan must shock every United Nations Member having a minimum of respect for the Organization and its specialized agencies, the letter said. It was all the more shocking in view of Israel's disregard and defiance of all the United Nations resolutions adopted on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Moreover, Israel took by force in 1948 more than $2,000 million worth of Arab property in Palestine, and thousands of millions of American dollars had since poured into Israel, giving the settlers a status of privileged social, economic and technological development in relation to the region as a whole. Even after Israel's third aggressive war against the Arabs in 1967, United States military and economic assistance had run into the thousands of millions of dollars, in spite of severe indictments of Israel by the United Nations and by its specialized agencies.

On 24 August, Israel drew attention to a joint declaration made in Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic, on 20 August 1971 by the Presidents of Egypt, the Libyan Arab Republic and the Syrian Arab Republic to mark the signing by the three States of the Constitution of the Federation of Arab Republics. The declaration stated among other things: "There will be no peace or negotiation with the Zionist enemy." Israel charged that the declaration was a flagrant breach of the United Nations Charter and a defiant negation of the obligation to reach a just and lasting peace in the Middle East through agreement between Israel and the Arab States, as called for by the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

On 11 December 1971, Egypt forwarded a telegram to the President of the General Assembly from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the German Democratic Republic stating that responsibility for the failure of efforts to bring
about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East rested with Israel and the imperialist circles backing it. The German Democratic Republic advocated a settlement based on the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967, and considered that the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Arab territories occupied in 1967, recognition of the sovereignty, territorial integrity
and political independence of the Arab States, and respect for the legitimate rights of their respective peoples were pre-conditions for the creation of a stable peace in the Middle East.

Declaration by General Assembly on right to self-determination

On 6 December 1971, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2787 (XXVI) on the importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights.

By this, the Assembly among other things reaffirmed the inalienable rights of all peoples, and in particular those of Zimbabwe, Namibia, the Portuguese territories in Africa and the Palestinian people, to freedom, equality and self-determination, and the legitimacy of their struggles to restore those rights.

The Assembly also confirmed the legality of the peoples' struggle for self-determination and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, in particular that of the peoples of Zimbabwe, Namibia and the Portuguese territories in Africa, as well as of the Palestinian people, by all available means consistent with the United Nations Charter.

(See also pp. 421-22.)

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

Interference with international civil aviation
S/10362. Letter of 8 October 1971 from Israel (enclosing letter of 30 September 1971 to Council of International Civil Aviation Organization).
A/8401. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1970-15 June 1971, Part Four, Chapter IV D.
A/8401/Add.1. Introduction to report of Secretary-General, Part Two, Chapter K, paras. 311-312.
A/8402. Report of Security Council, 16 June 1970-15 June 1971, Chapter 9.

Other communications
S/10136 (A/8288). Letter of 28 February 1971 from USSR.
S/10141 (A/8292). Letter of 2 March 1971 from Egypt (transmitting excerpts from statement of 4 February 1971 by President of Egypt).
S/10144 and Corr.1 (A/8294 and Corr.1). Letter of 4 March 1971 from Bulgaria.
S/10154 (A/8298). Note verbale of 11 March 1971 from Iran.
S/10188 (A/8310). Letter of 6 May 1971 from Iraq (transmitting letter of 28 April 1971 from Grand Rabbi of Jewish community in Iraq).
S/10272. Letter of 13 July 1971 from Executive Secretary of Organization of African Unity (OAU) to United Nations (transmitting resolutions adopted by 8th Assembly of Heads of State and Government of OAU).
S/10290 (A/8356). Letter of 13 August 1971 from Syrian Arab Republic.
S/10297. Letter of 24 August 1971 from Israel.
A/8586. Letter of 11 December 1971 from Egypt (transmitting telegram of 7 December 1971 from German Democratic Republic).

Assistance to refugees in the Near East

During 1971, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) maintained its programmes of assistance to Palestine refugees in Jordan, the West Bank, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Gaza Strip. It continued to face a grave financial crisis, despite the efforts of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, which had been established during the twenty-fifth session of the General Assembly in 1970. 19/ The Working Group succeeded in reducing the Agency's 1971 deficit from $5.5 million to $2.4 million, but a deficit of $6 million was expected for 1972.

On 1 January 1971, the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) launched an appeal on behalf of the UNRWA/UNESCO education and training programme; by the end of the year, the appeal had produced over $1.1 million in cash and in kind. Additional income was also raised through the efforts of the Working Group, notably a $1.3 million emergency contribution of foodstuffs from the World Food Programme. In May, the World Health Assembly requested the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) to expand the organization's health programme for refugees and displaced persons in the Middle East to the amount of $1 million from contributions outside the regular budget.

Also in May, the Economic and Social Council called for increased support for UNRWA from organizations of the United Nations system.

In December, the General Assembly extended the mandate of the Agency until 30 June 1975 and extended the mandate of the Working Group for one year.

The Assembly also, among other decisions: reaffirmed that full respect for the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine was an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East; called once more upon Israel to take immediate and effective steps for the return of persons who had fled the occupied areas since the outbreak of hostilities in 1967; and called upon Israel to desist from further destruction of refugee shelters and the removal of refugees, to return the refugees concerned to their camps and to provide adequate shelters for them.

Sir John Rennie (United Kingdom) succeeded Laurence Michelmore (United States) as Commissioner-General of UNRWA, taking office on 15 May 1971.

Activities In 1971

The number of refugees registered with UNRWA in 1971 rose to 1,487,096, an increase of 3 per cent over 1970.

More than 834,000 rations were issued monthly. Verification procedures removed from the ration rolls a large number of absentees and previously unreported dead whose rations were re-allocated, mainly to children who had not been receiving rations because of ration ceilings. The Agency also distributed monthly rations to 214,000 displaced persons and 40,000 displaced refugee children in east Jordan, against repayment by the Jordanian Government.

The Agency continued to provide preventive and curative medical services for eligible refugees, in co-operation with WHO. Expenditures on health services rose to $6.6 million in 1971. In addition, UNRWA continued its emergency and regular supplementary feeding programmes for vulnerable groups, particularly children, at an approximate annual cost of $2.7 million.

Expenditure on education increased to $22.6 million in 1971, nearly 47 per cent of the Agency's total expenditure.

In the 1971/72 school year, 257,000 children were enrolled in the schools run jointly by UNRWA and UNESCO, an increase of 15,000 over 1970/71. Over 50 per cent of the pupils were attending classes on a shift basis, despite the construction of 150 new schoolrooms during the year.

Protracted negotiations between UNESCO and the Governments concerned regarding textbooks for Agency schools resulted in the delivery of large quantities of badly needed books to the West Bank and Gaza.

Using funds donated specifically for the purpose, the Agency added more places in its training centres, bringing the total number of students to 2,544 in vocational and 1,031 in teacher-training sections. Since 1954, more than 15,000 trainees had been graduated from Agency centres.

The Agency's operations were again affected by political tensions. In July and August 1971, the demolition by Israeli military authorities, for security reasons, of the shelters of about 2,400 families in three refugee camps in the Gaza Strip displaced about 15,000 persons; of these, about 2,150 accepted accommodation at El Arish outside the Gaza Strip, a smaller number went to the West Bank and more than 12,000 found housing improvised shelters or doubled up with others.

In Lebanon, a number of buildings in camps continued to be occupied by Palestinian organizations, despite representations to the Government.

Economically, the situation remained very depressed in east Jordan, where refugees and displaced persons formed nearly half the population. In the West Bank, the economy continued to recover, providing more opportunities for employment.

With the aid of funds provided by special contributions, a start was made towards the replacement of tents by concrete-block shelters in four emergency camps in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Decisions by Economic and Social Council

At its April-May 1971 session, the Economic and Social Council, recognizing the acute financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), considered the need for emergency assistance to Palestine refugees.

On 3 May 1971, after welcoming the efforts made by various organizations of the United Nations family to provide emergency aid or to maintain existing services, the Council requested the Secretary-General and the heads of the specialized agencies, the United Nations Children's Fund and the United Nations Development Programme, as well as non-governmental organizations concerned, to continue to consider appropriate ways and means of rendering all possible assistance to the Palestine refugees. It also asked all organizations of the United Nations system to include in their annual reports information on possible current and future assistance to UNRWA and on activities of benefit to the Palestine refugees, in order to lessen the financial burden of the Agency.

These Council decisions were set forth in resolution 1565 (L), based on a text proposed by Ghana and Norway and adopted unanimously.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)


Consideration by General Assembly

When the situation of refugees in the Near East was considered by the General Assembly in 1971, the subject was referred to the Special Political Committee, which discussed it at 13 meetings held from 17 November to 2 December 1971.

Prior to the opening of the debate, the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General made a joint appeal for funds to ensure continuation of UNRWA'S assistance to refugees. They noted that the Agency would require $6 million more in 1972 than in 1971 if it was to maintain its services at their current level, and that any reduction of services would not only aggravate the misery of the refugees but increase the tensions in the area.

Reports before Special Political Committee

In its consideration of the situation of refugees in the Near East, the Special Political Committee had before it: (1) the annual report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA; (2) a report of the Secretary-General concerning displaced persons who had fled the Israel-occupied territories since the 1967 hostilities; (3) a special report of the Commissioner-General on the condition of Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip, and (4) a report of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA. A summary of these reports follows.

REPORT OF COMMISSIONER-GENERAL

In his annual report to the General Assembly, covering the period from 11 July 1970 to 30 June 1971, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA stated
that the Agency's regular programmes of assistance were being carried out amid continuing uncertainty about UNRWA'S ability to maintain its essential programmes.

The Commissioner-General expressed the hope that concern for the Agency's future had generated wider understanding of the plight of the Palestine refugees and of the nature of the Agency's operations. With regard to the latter, he noted that UNRWA provided services in, rather than administered, refugee camps (in which only 40 per cent of the registered refugees lived); that the camps were not extraterritorial areas under United Nations jurisdiction; that the refugees were free to move in and out; and that responsibility for the maintenance of law and order rested not with the Agency but with the Government of the host countries of Jordan, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic, and with the Government of Israel, as the occupying power, in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

The emphasis on the Agency's relief operations, the Commissioner-General continued, tended to obscure its constructive programmes of education and training, which in 1971 accounted for about 47 per cent of expenditure and which formed the foundation for individual rehabilitation as well as contributed to economic and social development in many Arab countries.

The report noted that the Agency's operations had been disrupted by violence on several occasions during the period under review. In east Jordan, UNRWA'S services had been suspended for 10 days in September 1970 during the fighting between Jordanian Government forces and Palestine fedayeen; 20/ in all, 13 Agency employees had been killed and the Agency had suffered damages amounting to about $524,000.

In the Gaza Strip, the Agency's operations were affected by the security measures taken by the Israeli authorities in January 1971, following persisting violence in which both Arabs and Israelis had lost their lives.

With regard to UNRWA'S financial situation, the report noted that thanks to the response by Governments and others to appeals made by the Working Group on UNRWA financing, by the Secretary-General and by the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the deficit of the Agency was reduced from about $5.5 million to $2.4 million as at 30 June 1971. However, an estimated deficit of $6 million was expected for 1972 on an expenditure budget of more than $51 million. The deficit was attributed to growing costs for education, set against a less rapidly increasing income and a declining capital reserve.

In conclusion, the Commissioner-General noted that the need for the Agency's regular programmes continued to be felt by the refugees and acknowledged by authorities in all areas of operation. Nevertheless, the threat to the maintenance of Agency programmes had not receded. An assurance of adequate financing was required if the General Assembly decided that the Agency should continue on its current lines and with its current programmes.

REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL

In a report prepared in response to a General Assembly request, the Secretary-General stated that he had asked Israel to inform him of steps it had taken to implement the Assembly's decision of 8 December 1970 concerning displaced persons who had fled the Israel-occupied territories since the 1967 hostilities. 21/

In its reply, dated 23 August 1971, Israel stated that the extent and rapidity of the return of the persons concerned were inevitably affected by the political and security conditions in the area. Arab Governments continued to encourage and assist acts of terrorism and violence; moreover, permits for the return of displaced persons had been used for the purpose of infiltrating terrorists, saboteurs and espionage agents. In these conditions, Israel could not agree to repatriation on a large scale. Pending a peace settlement, Israel continued to seek to reconcile the return of displaced persons with its responsibility for the welfare and security of the local population and the security of the State itself. It also continued to facilitate the return of persons displaced in the June 1967 hostilities in co-operation with Arab authorities in the area and in the context of family reunion and hardship cases, Israel asserted.

SPECIAL REPORT OF COMMISSIONER-GENERAL

The Commissioner-General of UNRWA submitted a special report on the effect on Palestine refugees of operations carried out in July and August 1971 by Israeli military authorities in the Gaza Strip.

The Commissioner-General stated that as a result of the demolition of shelters in refugee camps, almost 15,000 persons had been displaced. He reported that UNRWA had formally protested the action being taken by the Israeli authorities and had asked that a halt be called to the operations and steps taken to provide adequate shelter within the Gaza Strip for those who had lost their homes.

In transmitting the report to the General Assembly, the Secretary-General stated that he had urgently requested Israel to undertake promptly all measures necessary to ensure the immediate cessation of the destruction of refugee homes in the Gaza Strip and to halt the removal of the refugees to places outside the Strip. He had also requested Israel to provide adequate housing within the Gaza Strip for those displaced as a result of the operations.

In a letter of 28 September 1971, Israel replied that the measures taken in the refugee camps of the Gaza area had been aimed at putting an end to the acts of terror directed against the local Arab population. Because of overcrowding, the congested layout of houses and other circumstances, the refugee camps offered convenient conditions for terror operations which, in the period June 1967 to June 1971, had resulted in 219 Arab residents of the Gaza area being killed and 1,314 wounded, it was stated. To ensure safety in the camps, Israel had constructed roads, involving in certain places the demolition of dwellings. However, in all cases alternative housing of at least equal standard had been provided, or the cost of moving into new accommodations had been covered. Israel had informed the United Nations that those who had moved to housing available at El Arish and who wished to return to the Gaza area would be able to do so as soon as housing facilities were available.

As a result of the above measures, terror activities in the Gaza area, including activities aimed at Arab refugees, had drastically diminished, it was stated.

Subsequently, in a supplementary report, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA stated that 14,704 persons had been affected by the demolition, that the Agency had submitted to Israel a claim for compensation amounting to about $400,000, and that the Agency was continuing to provide services to those refugees whose dwellings had been demolished and who had remained in the Gaza Strip.


REPORT OF WORKING GROUP ON FINANCING OF UNRWA

The Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA submitted a report prepared in compliance with a General Assembly decision of 7 December 1970. 22/

At its meetings in 1971, the Working Group examined ways and means of obtaining additional contributions for UNRWA and broadening the base of its support.

In February 1971, the Chairman of the Working Group contacted all the regional groups within the United Nations and explained to them the Agency's grave budgetary crisis and its need for additional contributions in cash or in kind. The Organization of African Unity, the League of Arab States and the Organization of American States were also contacted.

The Chairman also visited the refugee camps. The host countries subsequently endorsed the efforts of the Working Group and reaffirmed that they were unable to accept any reduction in UNRWA'S relief, health and education services.

As the result of approaches made to agencies of the United Nations system, to individual Governments and to non-governmental and other sources, several new or additional contributions were obtained, including up to $2 million in emergency food aid from the World Food Programme.

The Working Group concluded that it would be necessary to maintain the activities of UNRWA in the immediate years to come, that the system of financing by voluntary contributions should be continued and that extraordinary measures were required to maintain UNRWA'S activities at their current level.

Concerning the financing of UNRWA activities for 1972, the Working Group recommended, among other things: that an urgent appeal be made to non-contributing Governments to contribute, and that special efforts be made both to identify specific projects or areas of activity in which other agencies of the United Nations family could assist UNRWA and to obtain voluntary contributions from non-governmental sources.

With regard to financing UNRWA activities after 1972, the Working Group recommended a basic reappraisal of the Agency's operations to establish them on a more secure foundation. It also suggested that consideration be given to the establishment of a high-level international committee of philanthropists in each potential donor country, and to the issuing of special UNRWA or United Nations stamps, proceeds from the sale of which would be channelled to the Agency.

The Working Group recommended that its own mandate be extended for one year.

General Assembly discussion

In presenting his annual report to the Special Political Committee, the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) stated that the financial crisis of the Agency, which had been temporarily deferred by the establishment of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA had not receded and presented an immediate threat to the Agency's programmes and to the welfare of the refugees.

Since 1959, the Commissioner-General said, the resolutions of the General Assembly had tended to take UNRWA programmes for granted and had not offered guidance on their scope. It had been assumed that the same programmes could be maintained despite higher costs and greater numbers of refugees; the Working Group's report must cast doubt on any such assumption in regard to 1972.

The Agency's doubt about its future was deepened by its awareness of the impasse reached in the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. 23/ The need for UNRWA'S services would continue so long as there was no peace settlement in the Middle East which included a just solution of the refugee problem; yet there was no guarantee that the necessary funds would be available.

The Commissioner-General then reviewed the services provided by the Agency and noted that the scope for effective savings was limited. He asked Committee Members earnestly to consider the desirability of concerted action to preserve intact the UNRWA programme.

The representative of Lebanon, speaking on behalf of the host countries, stated that despite the efforts of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA, the future operations of the Agency were far from being assured. It had been recognized that a collapse of operations or even reductions in relief, health and educational services would have ominous effects on the refugees and on the over-all situation in the Middle East.

The financial crisis with which UNRWA was faced was not the only obstacle involved, the Lebanese representative continued, for Israel had taken measures to make the situation even more difficult. It had prevented the distribution of textbooks in the UNRWA/UNESCO and privately run schools in the occupied territories; it had detained 36 of the Agency's staff in the Gaza Strip without pressing any criminal charges; during the summer of 1971, it had subjected the refugees in the Gaza Strip to untold sufferings in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949 (relative to the protection of civilians in time of war).

Most seriously, Israel had refused to co-operate in the implementation of United Nations resolutions. It continued to disregard United Nations resolutions regarding the refugees displaced as a result of the 1967 hostilities, and ignored the General Assembly's resolution of 11 December 1948 calling for either repatriation or compensation of the refugees. 24/

Replying to suggestions that the Arab Governments should assume greater responsibility in caring for the refugees, Lebanon stated that the Arab Governments alone could not bear this burden because they were already facing the complex problems of development, which were constantly aggravated by Israeli aggression and expansionism. Despite their difficulties, the Arab countries had provided the Palestinians with as much humanitarian assistance as possible. Arab contributions to UNRWA had increased every year; in 1970-1971, they amounted to about $23.5 million.

Some 43 per cent of refugees were not dependent on UNRWA, whose expenses and activities constituted the minimal expression of the international community's responsibility towards the refugees. Thus the Arab countries would continue to oppose any attempt to reduce those services.

The representative of Israel stated that the solution of the problem of the Palestinian Arab refugees must be reconciled with the safeguarding of the rights and sovereignty of Israel. The Security Council had put the refugee problem in its proper context in its resolution 242 (1967), 25/ which made the solution one of the interdependent elements of peace agreements to be negotiated between Israel and the Arab Governments, he continued. It was regrettable that the parties had not yet entered into such negotiations.

Since 1948, the Arab States had used the refugees as a political and military weapon to undermine Israel's independence, the Israeli representative stated; the events in Gaza in 1971 had shown that refugee camps could continue to serve as centres for terrorist activities. Nevertheless, the Israeli Government had shown that it was prepared to take considerable security risks for the sake of the refugees; since 1967, it had granted permits for the return of more than 38,000 West Bank and Gaza inhabitants.

Over the years, Israel said, it had offered to participate in any programme to assist the resettlement of the refugees in the Arab world, to place the refugee question at the top of any peace negotiations and to pay compensation before the conclusion of peace agreements. The Arab Governments had turned down all such offers.

Since 1967, about 40 per cent of all refugees registered with UNRWA had been living in areas administered by Israel, the Israeli representative noted. Israel had evidenced its willingness to co-operate with the Agency, subject only to considerations of military security. Since 1967 conditions had improved, and security measures had been further relaxed.

With regard to the textbook issue, the representative said that Israel had objected to the use, in United Nations-supported schools, of books containing derogatory passages on Jews and Israel. However, out of 118 textbooks submitted by UNESCO to Israel, only seven remained contestable.

Israel noted that in the past four years, its contribution to UNRWA had amounted to more than $3.5 million, in addition to services it provided directly to refugees and general services for the population of the administered areas as a whole, half of whose inhabitants were refugees.

During the discussion, many speakers praised the work of UNRWA and expressed concern regarding the threatened reduction of its services to refugees, particularly in education.

A number of Members stated that if the Agency was to continue its programmes at the current level, a substantial increase in contributions was necessary. The United States, among others appealed to countries which had not contributed to UNRWA to do so, and to those which had contributed to increase their contributions.

Czechoslovakia and the USSR said that they would continue to provide bilateral aid to the Arab States.

China said that it would, as in the past, give the Palestinian people aid and assistance through bilateral arrangements.

Egypt, among others, noted that if the United Nations resolutions calling for the return of the refugees to their homes were implemented, a good part of the Agency's deficit would be eliminated. India held that responsibility for the refugees rested with the State which forced them to flee rather than the State which was assisting them.

Many Members supported the conclusions and recommendations of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA. Some hoped that as a result of the Working Group's efforts, the United Nations specialized agencies would increase their contributions. Norway and Sweden mentioned in particular the need for contributions in kind. Kuwait, however, questioned the Working Group's recommendation that the Agency continue to be supported by voluntary contributions; nor were the other proposals put forward by the Working Group very imaginative or likely to be fruitful, Kuwait felt.

Many representatives said that the solution of the refugee problem was to be found in the implementation of the relevant United Nations resolutions.

Some members--including Belgium, Greece, Japan, Romania and the United States--held that the problem of the refugees was inextricably linked to issues that divided Israel and the Arab States and could be resolved only as part of an over-all Middle East settlement in accordance with the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. 26/

Representatives of Arab countries considered that the refugee problem was the result of Israel's disregard of past United Nations resolutions. Kuwait was among those maintaining that the return of the refugees could not be made contingent on peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Jordan said that the right of the Palestine refugees to return to their homes was a fundamental human right. Others stated that the Agency's financial problem would not exist if Palestinian properties and assets which had been usurped by Israel were returned to the legitimate owners.

Many representatives, recalling that in its resolution of 8 December 1970 the General Assembly had recognized the right of the people of Palestine to self-determination, 27/ held that respect for the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine was an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Thus, the representative of Tunisia supported the idea that the only way to ensure a lasting peace in the Middle East was to enable the Palestinian people to build a united Palestine where all could live in peace and equality. The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic called for the reactivation of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. Poland asserted that the struggle waged by the Arab people of Palestine would receive support from all progressive peoples in the world.

China held that the only possible lasting and effective solution to the so-called question of Palestine refugees was the restoration of the Palestinian people's national rights. In recent years, the struggle against zionism had become an important element of the Arab liberation movement and of the world struggle against colonialism and imperialism. Victory belonged to the Palestinians and the Arab peoples, the Chinese representative said.

In accordance with decisions taken by the Committee on 18 and 24 November 1971, respectively, spokesmen for the "Palestine Arab delegation" and the Palestine Liberation Organization participated in the discussion. The spokesmen reiterated the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and asserted that the Palestine liberation movement would continue its struggle to promote a just and lasting peace in the region and to establish a popular democratic State of Palestine.

Six draft resolutions on the question of the refugees in the Middle East were introduced in the Special Political Committee. On 1 December 1971, the Committee approved all six drafts, and they were subsequently adopted by the General Assembly on 6 December.

By the first of these, the Assembly recognized that the financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continued to be acute, and emphasized the urgent need for extraordinary efforts and exceptional measures in order to maintain, at least at their current level, the activities of the Agency.

The Assembly then, among other things, approved the report of the Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA and extended its mandate for one year. The Working Group was asked to submit a comprehensive report on all aspects of the financing of the Agency to the Assembly at its 1972 session.

The Assembly also supported the joint appeal by its President and the Secretary-General to Governments to join in the collective effort to solve the financial crisis of UNRWA, and endorsed the request of the Economic and Social Council, made on 3 May 1971, that the Secretary-General, the heads of the specialized agencies, the United Nations Children's Fund and the United Nations Development Programme, and the non-governmental organizations concerned, continue to consider appropriate ways and means of rendering all possible assistance to the Palestine refugees.

These decisions by the Assembly were set forth in resolution 2791 (XXVI), adopted by a vote of 114 to 0, with 2 abstentions. The text was based on a proposal by Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iran and Sweden, as amended by the United States, and was approved without objection by the Special Political Committee.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By another decision, the Assembly noted with deep regret that the repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for by its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 28/ had not been effected and that no substantial progress had been made towards the reintegration of refugees, either by repatriation or resettlement. The Assembly requested the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine to report on the implementation of resolution 194 (II) by no later than 11 October 1972.


The Assembly also directed attention to the continuing critical financial position of UNRWA, and called upon all Governments to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the Agency's anticipated needs.

The Assembly decided to extend the mandate of UNRWA until 30 June 1975, without prejudice to the provisions of its resolution 194 (III).

These decisions were set forth in resolution 2792 A (XXVI), adopted by a vote of 112 to 0, with 3 abstentions. The text, approved without objection by the Special Political Committee, was based on a draft sponsored by the United States, and incorporated an amendment submitted by Denmark.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.).

The Assembly also expressed its concern about the continued human suffering resulting from the June 1967 hostilities in the Middle East. It endorsed the efforts of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who were displaced as a result of the 1967 hostilities, and appealed to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously for this purpose to UNRWA and to other inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

The Assembly took these decisions in adopting resolution 2792 B (XXVI), by a vote of 113 to 0, with 1 abstention. The text was based on a proposal by 19 States: Afghanistan, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and Yugoslavia. It was approved without objection by the Special Political Committee.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

In another action, the General Assembly took note of the special report and supplement thereto of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA on the effect on Palestine refugees of operations carried out by Israeli military authorities in the Gaza Strip.

The Assembly deplored the destruction of refugee shelters and the forcible removal of their occupants to other places, including places outside the Gaza Strip, which it declared in contravention of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and of the Assembly's decision of 9 December 1970 29/ concerning the protection of civilian populations in armed conflicts.

The Assembly called upon Israel: (1) to desist from further destruction of refugee shelters and removal of refugees from their current places of residence; and (2) to take immediate and effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation.

The Secretary-General was requested to report no later than the opening date of the Assembly's 1972 session on Israel's compliance with the above provisions.

This Assembly action was embodied in resolution 2792 C (XXVI), which was adopted by a recorded vote of 79 to 4, with 35 abstentions. The text was based on a proposal by Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal and Somalia, and was approved by the Special Political Committee by a roll-call vote of 66 to 4, with 32 abstentions.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

In treating another aspect of the refugee problem, the Assembly observed that the problem of the Palestinian Arab refugees had arisen from the denial of their inalienable rights under the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Assembly then: (1) recognized that the people of Palestine were entitled to equal rights and self-determination, in accordance with the Charter; (2) expressed its grave concern that the people of Palestine had not been permitted to enjoy their inalienable rights and to exercise their right to self-determination; and (3) declared that full respect for the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine was an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The Assembly took these decisions in adopting resolution 2792 D (XXVI), by a roll-call vote of 53 to 23, with 43 abstentions. The draft--approved by the Special Political Committee by a roll-call vote of 46 to 20, with 36 abstentions--was based on a text sponsored by Afghanistan, Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia and Yugoslavia.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By yet another decision on the refugee problem, the General Assembly made the point that the plight of the displaced inhabitants continued since they had not yet returned to their homes and camps, and expressed its grave concern that the displaced inhabitants had not been able to return in accordance with earlier Assembly resolutions. It then called once more upon Israel to take immediately and without any further delay effective steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly on the implementation of this resolution.

The Assembly took this action in adopting resolution 2792 E (XXVI), by a roll-call vote of 88 to 3, with 28 abstentions. Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia and Yugoslavia sponsored the text, which was approved by the Special Political Committee by a roll-call vote of 75 to 2, with 25 abstentions.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)


Pledges and payments for 1971

For the calendar year 1971, 62 countries and territories pledged the equivalent of $43,683,086 towards UNRWA's budget. As at 31 December 1971, the equivalent of $33,306,111 had been received in payment of these pledges. In addition, contributions were received from non-governmental organizations, private individuals and business corporations.

Pledges and contributions to UNRWA
for year ending 31 December 1971
(Showing equivalent in U.S. dollars or pledges and
contributions in cash, kind and services)

Contribution
Pledging Government Pledge Received

Abu Dhabi 110,000 a/ 110,000
Argentina 125,000 -
Australia 213,014 68,440 b/
Austria 20,000 20,000
Bahrain 10,000 a/ 10,000
Belgium 506,762 20,694
Canada 1,330,150 1,330,150
Ceylon 1,000 1,000
Chile 2,000 c/ 1,000
China 30,000 30,000
Cyprus 731 a/ 731
Denmark 714,612 646,112
Dubai 20,000 a/ 20,000
Federal Republic of
Germany 3,475,889 a/ 3,475,889
Finland 197,500 a/ 197,500
France 1,445,348 296,808
Gaza Authorities 88,728 88,728
Ghana 3,500 -
Greece 16,000 16,000
Holy See 2,500 -
Iceland 10,000 10,000
India 15,333 a/ -
Iran 23,030 a/ 18,030
Iraq 125,000 a/ 125,000
Ireland 60,000 60,000
Israel 454,030 454,030
Italy 187,921 15,952
Japan 555,000 550,000
Jordan 194,607 194,607
Kuwait 400,000 a/ 400,000
Lebanon 50,810 50,810
Liberia 5,000 -
Libyan Arab Republic 250,000 a/ 250,000
Luxembourg 4,000 4,000
Malaysia 1,500 1,500
Monaco 180 180
Morocco 76,442 a/ 76,442
Netherlands 176,471 176,471
New Zealand 69,172 69,172
Niger 450 -
Nigeria 5,600 5,600
Norway 600,696 a/ 600,696
Oman 10,000 10,000
Pakistan 20,969 20,969
Panama 500 -
Qatar 32,000 a/ 32,000
Republic of Korea 5,000 5,000
Republic of Viet-Nam 3,000 3,000
Romania 5,555 a/ -
Saudi Arabia 297,000 -
Singapore 1,000 1,000
Spain 782,513 782,513
Sudan 2,870 2,870
Sweden 2,449,864 a/ 2,449,864
Switzerland 877,671 845,621
Syrian Arab Republic 88,145 60,060
Trinidad and Tobago 1,500 1,500
Tunisia 5,000 5,000
Turkey 15,000 15,000
United Kingdom 4,512,000 a/ 4,512,000
United States 22,980,523 15,144,172
Yugoslavia 20,000 20,000

a/ Includes a contribution in response to an appeal by the Director-General of UNESCO.

b/ The remainder of the Australian Government's pledge, which was deposited in UNRWA's procurement account or the purchase of supplies in Australia, had not yet been utilized.

c/ Includes $1,000 pledged for 1970.

d/ Since the United States fiscal year ends in June, the amount shown as a pledge is the allocation by UNRWA to its 1971 programme of half the United States contribution for its fiscal year 1970/71 and half for 1971/72. The contribution shown is the amount received against this allocation in 1971 (excluding payments received in 1971 and allocated by UNRWA to its 1970 programme). Also include special contributions for 1971 totalling $780,523.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

Economic and Social Council--50th session
Plenary meeting 1747.

E/L.1387. Ghana and Norway: draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 1565 (L), as proposed by 2 powers, E/L.1387, and as orally amended by Sudan, by United Kingdom and by sponsors, adopted unanimously by Council on 3 May 1971, meeting 1747.

The Economic and Social Council,

Recognizing the acute financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East which endangers the minimum services provided to Palestine refugees,

Recalling General Assembly resolutions 2856 (XXV) of 7 December 1970 and 2672 B (XXV) of 8 December 1970,

Recalling further General Assembly resolution 2728 (XXV) of 15 December 1970 by which the Assembly approved the report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and endorsed the Working Group's recommendations, thereby, inter alia, urging all organizations of the United Nations system to study ways by which they might assist the Agency or undertake activities helpful to the refugees which would lessen the financial burden of the Agency, to the maximum extent possible,

Noting with appreciation the efforts made so far by the Working Group with regard to the organizations of the United Nations system in soliciting increased assistance to the Palestine refugees,

Noting also with appreciation the assistance already offered by some organizations within the United Nations system in response to those efforts, in recognizing that, especially in cases of emergency, concern for human welfare requires an extra interagency solidarity,

Being convinced, however, that further contributions and assistance for the benefit of the Palestine refugees are urgently needed,

1. Welcomes in particular the decisions already taken under the World Food Programme to provide emergency food aid up to $2 million;

2. Welcomes also the contacts initiated with the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organization with a view to obtaining services to the maximum extent possible;

3. Welcomes further the positive steps taken by the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization In launching an appeal for funds to maintain the educational services for Palestine refugees and the encouraging results obtained so far;

4. Expresses the hope for an early implementation of the above-mentioned decisions, particularly of paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 2672 B (XXV), as well as manifestations of concrete results of the above-mentioned contacts and steps in accordance with constitutional procedures;

5. Requests the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the executive heads of specialized agencies, the Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund and the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme as well as the non-governmental organizations concerned to continue to consider appropriate ways and means of rendering all possible assistance to the Palestine refugees;

6. Requests further all organizations of the United Nations system to include in their annual reports information on their possible present and future assistance to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and on their activities that benefit the Palestine refugees, and thus lessen the financial burden of the Agency.


General Assembly--26th session
Special Political Committee, meetings 754, 781-793.
Ad Hoc Committee of General Assembly for Announcement of Voluntary Contributions to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in Near East (UNRWA), meeting 1.
Fifth Committee, meeting 1470.
Plenary meeting 2001.

A/8366. Report of 27 August 1971 of Secretary-General.
A/8383 and Add.1. Notes of 17 September and 23 November 1971 by Secretary-General (transmitting special report, and supplement, of Commissioner-General of UNRWA on effect on Palestine refugees of operations carried out in July and August 1971 by Israeli military authorities in Gaza Strip).
A/8401. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1970-15 June 1971, Part One, Chapter IV K.
A/8403. Report of Economic and Social Council on work of its 50th and 51st sessions, Chapter XVIII D.
A/8413. Report of Commissioner-General of UNRWA (for period 1 July 1970-30 June 1971).
A/8432. Letter of 28 September 1971 from Israel.
A/8476 and Corr.1. Report of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA.
A/8526. Joint appeal of 17 November 1971 by President of General Assembly and Secretary-General.
A/SPC/147. Letter of 22 October 1971 from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (requesting hearing for "Palestine Arab delegation").
A/SPC/148. Letter of 23 November 1971 from Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yemen and Yugoslavia requesting hearing for delegation of Palestine Liberation Organization).
A/SPC/L 228. Belgium, Denmark, Sweden: draft resolution.
A/SPC/L.228/Rev.1. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iran, Sweden: revised draft resolution as amended by United States, A/SPC/L.233, approved without objection by Special Political Committee on 1 December 1971, meeting 791.
A/SPC/L.229, A/C.5/1411, A/8548. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution 11 recommended by Special Political Committee in A/8547. Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.
A/SPC/L.233. United States: amendment to 6-power draft resolution, A/SPC/L.228, Rev.1.
A/8547. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution I.

RESOLUTION 2791 (XXVI), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8547, adopted by Assembly on 6 December 1971, meeting 2001, by 114 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2656 (XXV) of 7 December 1970 and 2728 (XXV) of 15 December 1970,

Having considered the report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

Taking into account the annual report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1970 to 30 June 1971,

Taking note of the joint appeal made by the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General on 17 November 1971,

Recognizing with grave concern that the financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East continues to be acute, thereby imminently endangering the already minimum services being provided to Palestine refugees,

Emphasizing the urgent need for extraordinary efforts and exceptional measures in order to maintain, at least at their present level, the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

1. Commends the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for its work and approves its report, drawing special attention to the conclusions and recommendations contained in chapter V of that report;

2. Requests the Working Group to continue its work for one year in accordance with the provisions of its previous mandate and, as appropriate, to pursue urgently with Governments, both bitaterally and on a regional basis, with specialized agencies and other organizations within the United Nations system, and with other organizations and individuals concerned, the implementation of the recommendations approved by the General Assembly in the present resolution, as well as the implementation of other resolutions relating to the mandate of the Working Group;

3. Endorses Economic and Social Council resolution 1565 (L) of 3 May 1971, and in particular urges serious consideration and early implementation of paragraph 5 of that resolution;

4. Supports the joint appeal made by the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General to Governments to join in the collective effort to solve the financial crisis of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East;

5. Requests the Working Group, after consultation with all concerned, in particular, the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and taking into account the views expressed in the course of the debate during the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth sessions of the General Assembly relevant to the mandate of the Working Group, to prepare and submit a comprehensive report on all aspects of the financing of the Agency to the General Assembly at its twenty-seventh session;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary services and assistance to the Working Group for the conduct of its work.

A/SPC/L.225 and Rev.1 and Rev.1/Corr.1. United States: draft resolution and revision, approved without objection by Special Political Committee on 1 December 1971, meeting 792.
A/SPC/L.227. Denmark: amendment to United States draft resolution, A/SPC/L.225.
A/8547. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution II A.

RESOLUTION 2792 A (XXVI), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8547, adopted by Assembly on 6 December 1971, meeting 2001, by 112 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 2672 A (XXV) of 8 December 1970 and all previous resolutions mentioned therein, including resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948,

Taking note of the annual report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1970 to 30 June 1971,

Taking note also of the joint appeal made by the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General on 17 November 1971,

1. Notes with deep regret that the repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) has not been affected, that no substantial progress has been made in the programme endorsed by the Assembly in paragraph 2 of resolution 513 (VI) for the reintegration of refugees either by repatriation or resettlement and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continues to be a matter of serious concern;

2. Expresses its sincere appreciation to Mr. Laurence Michelmore, on the occasion of his resignation as Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, for his efficient administration of the Agency during the past seven years and for his dedicated service to the welfare of the refugees;

3. Expresses its thanks to the Commissioner-General and to the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for their continued faithful efforts to provide essential services for the Palestine refugees, and to the specialized agencies and private organizations for their valuable work in assisting the refugees;

4. Notes with regret that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine was unable to find a means of achieving progress in the implementation of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III), and requests the Commission to exert continued efforts towards the implementation thereof and to report thereon as appropriate, but not later than 1 October 1972;

5. Directs attention to the continuing critical financial position of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as outlined in the Commissioner-General's report;

6. Notes with concern that, despite the commendable and successful efforts of the Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions to help relieve the serious budget deficit of the past year, contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East continue to tall short of the funds needed to cover essential budget requirements;

7. Calls upon all Governments as a matter of urgency to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, particularly in the light of the budgetary deficit projected in the Commissioner-General's report, and therefore urges non-contributing Governments to contribute and contributing Governments to consider increasing their contributions;

8. Decides to extend until 30 June 1975, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III), the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

A/SPC/L.226. Afghanistan, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, approved without objection by Special Political Committee on 1 December 1971, meeting 792.
A/8547. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution 11 B.

RESOLUTION 2792 B (XXVI) as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8547, adopted by Assembly on 6 December 1971, meeting 2001, by 113 votes to 0, with 1 abstention.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2341 B (XXII) of 19 December 1967, 2452 C (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 C (XXIV) of 10 December 1969 and 2672 B (XXV) of 8 December 1970,

Taking note of the annual report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, covering the period from 1 July 1970 to 30 June 1971,

Taking note also of the joint appeal made by the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General,

Concerned about the continued human suffering resulting from the June 1967 hostilities in the Middle East,

1. Reaffirms its resolutions 2252 (ES-V), 2341 B (XXII), 2452 C (XXIII), 2535 C (XXIV) and 2672 B (XXV);

2. Endorses, bearing in mind the objectives of those resolutions, the efforts of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to continue to provide humanitarian assistance, as far as practicable, on an emergency basis and as a temporary measure, to other persons in the area who are at present displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 hostilities;

3. Strongly appeals to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously for the above purposes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and to the other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

A/SPC/L.230 and Rev.1. Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia: draft resolution and revision, approved by Special Political Committee on 1 December 1971, meeting 792, by roll-call vote of 66 to 4, with 32 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Ceylon, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Against: Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Israel.

Abstaining: Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Swaziland, Uganda, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela.

A/8547. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution II C.

RESOLUTION 2792 C (XXVI), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8547, adopted by Assembly on 6 December 1971, meeting 2001, by recorded vote of 79 to 4, with 35 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Ceylon, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Israel.

Abstaining: Argentina, Barbados, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gabon, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Swaziland, Uganda, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the special report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East on the effect on Palestine refugees of recent operations carried out by the Israeli military authorities in the Gaza Strip, and the supplement thereto,

Noting that both the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East have expressed great concern about the effect on Palestine refugees of these operations, in which shelters in refugee camps were demolished and about 15,000 persons displaced, some of them to places outside the Gaza Strip,

Recalling Commission on Human Rights resolution 10 (XXVI) of 23 March 1970, in which the Commission deplored all policies and action aiming at the deportation of the Palestinian refugees from the occupied Gaza Strip and called upon Israel to desist forthwith from deporting the Palestinian civilians from the Gaza Strip,

1. Declares that the destruction of refugee shelters and the forcible removal of their occupants to other places, including places outside the Gaza Strip, contravene articles 49 and 53 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 as well as paragraph 7 of General Assembly resolution 2675 (XXV) of 9 December 1970 entitled "Basic principles for the protection of civilian populations in armed conflicts";

2. Deplores these actions by Israel;

3. Calls upon Israel to desist from further destruction of refugee shelters and from further removal of refugees from their present places of residence;

4. Calls upon Israel to take immediate and effective steps for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation;

5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to report as soon as possible and whenever appropriate thereafter, but in any case not later than the opening date of the twenty-seventh session of the General Assembly, on Israel's compliance with the provisions of paragraph 3 and on implementation of the provisions of paragraph 4 of the present resolution.

A/SPC/L.231. Afghanistan, Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia, Yugoslavia; draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 1 December 1971, meeting 792, by roll-call vote of 46 to 20, with 36 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Ceylon, Chile, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Against: Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Israel, Italy, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, United States, Uruguay.

Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Brazil, Burundi, Chad, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana, Guyana, Iceland, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mexico, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, Upper Volta, Venezuela.

A/8547. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution 11 D.

RESOLUTION 2792 D (XXVI), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8547, adopted by Assembly on 6 December 1971, meeting 2001, by roll-call vote of 53 to 23, with 43 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Ceylon, Chile, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Italy, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Swaziland, United States, Uruguay.

Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Dahomey, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Ghana, Guyana, Iceland, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Laos, Lesotho, Malta, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Zaire.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that the problem of the Palestinian Arab refugees has arisen from the denial of their inalienable rights under the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Recalling its resolution 2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969, in which it reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine, its resolution 2672 C (XXV) of 8 December 1970, in which it recognized that the people of Palestine are entitled to equal rights and self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and its resolution 2649 (XXV) of 30 November 1970, in which it recognized hat the people of Palestine are entitled to the right of self -determination,

Bearing in mind the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in Articles 1 and 55 of the Charter and more recently reaffirmed in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security,

1. Recognizes that the people of Palestine are entitled to equal rights and self-determination, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

2. Expresses its grave concern that the people of Palestine have not been permitted to enjoy their inalienable rights and to exercise their right to self-determination;

3. Declares that full respect for the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine is an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

A/SPC/L.232 and Rev.1. Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia, Yugoslavia: draft resolution and revision, approved by Special Political Committee on 1 December 1971, meeting 792, by roll-call vote of 75 to 2, with 25 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Against: Israel, Malawi.

Abstaining: Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Peru, Portugal, Swaziland, Uganda, Uruguay.

A/8547. Report of Special Political Committee, draft resolution II E.

RESOLUTION 2792 E (XXVI), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8547 adopted by Assembly on 6 December 1971, meeting 2001, by roll-call vote of 88 to 3, with 28 abstentions.

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Costa Rica, Guatemala, Israel.

Abstaining: Argentina, Barbados, Botswana, Brazil, Central African Republic, Colombia, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gabon, Ghana, Honduras, Iceland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Laos, Lesotho, Malawi, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Swaziland, Uganda, Uruguay, Zaire.

*Subsequently Honduras advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.

The General Assembly,

Recalling Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2452 A (XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969 and 2672 D (XXV) of 8 December 1970, calling upon the Government of Israel to take effective and immediate steps for the return without delay of those inhabitants who had fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General of 27 August 1971 concerning the implementation of resolution 2672 D (XXV),

Gravely concerned about the plight of the displaced inhabitants,

Convinced that the plight of the displaced inhabitants could be relieved by their speedy return to their homes and to the camps which they formerly occupied,

Emphasizing the imperative of giving effect to its resolutions for relieving the plight of the displaced inhabitants,

1. Considers that the plight of the displaced inhabitants continues since they have not yet returned to their homes and camps;

2. Expresses its grave concern that the displaced inhabitants have not been able to return in accordance with the above-mentioned resolutions;

3. Calls once more upon the Government of Israel to take immediately and without any further delay effective steps for the return of the displaced inhabitants;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the implementation of the present resolution and to report thereon to the General Assembly.

Notes

1/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967).

2/ Ibid.

3/ See Y.U.N., 1967, p. 189, texts of resolution 233 (1967) of 6 June and resolution 234 (1967) of 7 June 1967, and p. 190, texts of resolution 235 (1967) of 9 June and resolution 236 (1967) of 11 June 1967.

4/ See footnote 1.

5/ For text of Chapter VII of the charter, see APPENDIX II.

6/ See Y.U.N., 1970, pp. 105-7, resolution 2734 (XXV) of 16 December 1970, containing text of Declaration.

7/ Ibid., p. 261, text of resolution 2628 (XXV).

8/ See Y.U.N., 1968, pp. 264-65, text of resolution 252 (1968).

9/ See Y.U.N., 1969, p. 220, text of resolution 267 (1969).

10/ For background information see Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 174-89 and p. 237.

11/ For text of Chapter VII of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.

12/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967).

13/ See footnote 8.

14/ See footnote 9.

15/ See Y.U.N., 1970, pp. 523-26.

16/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967).

17/ See footnote 15.

18/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967).

19/ See Y.U.N., 1970, p. 280, text of resolution 2656 (XXV) of 7 December 1970.

20/ See Y.U.N., 1970, p. 270.

21/ See Y.U.N., 1970, p. 283, text of resolution 2672 D (XXV).

22/ See footnote 1.

23/ See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58, text of resolution 242 (1967).

24/ See Y.U.N., 1948-49, pp. 174-76, text of resolution 194 (III).

25/ See footnote 5.

26/ By resolution 242 (1967), the Security Council affirmed, among other things, that the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include both (i) the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict of June 1967; and (ii) the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. (See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 257-58).

27/ See Y.U.N., 1970, pp. 282-83, text of resolution 2672 C (XXV).

28/ See footnote 6.

29/ See Y.U.N., 1970, pp. 542-43, text of resolution 2675 (XXV).


-----





Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter