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

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information
31 December 1970
YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED
NATIONS

1970



Office of Public Information
United Nations, New York



CHAPTER XI
THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Various aspects of the situation in the Middle East were of continuing concern to United Nations bodies during 1970.

Communications and reports concerning the status of the cease-fire between Israel on the one hand and Jordan, the United Arab Republic, Lebanon and Syria on the other were received by the Security Council throughout the year. The Council met in May and again in September to consider complaints by Lebanon and by Israel and adopted three resolutions.

The reports of two groups concerned with aspects of the question of the violation of human rights in the territories occupied as a result of hostilities in the Middle East were considered variously by the Commission on Human Rights, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly.

Efforts continued in the search for a settlement of the Middle East problem, and the Secretary-General reported on the activities of his Special Representative to the Middle East, Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring.

As had been decided at its twenty-fourth session in 1969, the General Assembly considered the situation in the Middle East at its twenty-fifth session in 1970 and adopted a resolution on the question, making recommendation to the parties to the conflict.

Details of these and other related matters are to be found in the sections which follow.
THE STATUS OF THE CEASE-FIRE

COMPLAINTS BY ISRAEL AND JORDAN

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(JANUARY-AUGUST 1970)

During January 1970, the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council received a number of communications from Israel and Jordan, each charging the other with aggressive acts.

Israel complained that Jordanian aggression aimed at inflicting casualties and destruction on the Israeli civilian population had persisted, and it insisted that observance of the cease-fire must be on a strictly reciprocal basis.

On 21 January, Jordan charged that Israeli military units had crossed the Armistice Demarcation Line south of the Dead Sea in the area of Ghor-Es-Safi and Feyfa and had engaged Jordanian forces until the next day, while Israeli jet aircraft bombed and strafed military and civilian targets in the area.

The following day, Israel said in reply that three tanks and eight armoured personnel carriers had entered the area in order to clear it of terror squads which, it charged, had committed several attacks against civilian centres in the area, including the Dead Sea Potash Works. Israel said it had acted in self-defence, and as a result of armed attacks from Jordan - and Israel's counter-measures - suffering and grief had been caused to both sides. For this, the Arab States, including Jordan, should be held responsible.

Until a final peace was negotiated, Israel insisted, it was the duty of the Governments concerned to maintain the cease-fire.

During April, Jordan charged that Israel, in violation of the principles of international law, had been engaged in constructing a three-kilometre-long road into Jordanian territory, in Ghor-Es-Safi, south of the Dead Sea, in an attempt to occupy the sources of water in Jordanian territory. The aim was to control those water sources and link them to Israeli potash factories.

Jordan also charged that between 1 January and 10 April over 85 attacks had been carried out by Israeli jet aircraft, artillery and rockets against civilian centres across the Jordan River, resulting in over 90 deaths. Jordan protested that the continued acts of aggression against innocent civilians, livestock and irrigation projects, together with the continued violation of Jordanian air space and its use as a testing ground for newly delivered United States Phantom jets and other military equipment, constituted a gross violation of the Armistice Agreement and the cease-fire.

On 29 January, Israel replied that the ceasefire was constantly being violated by acts of aggression carried out by regular and irregular forces from Jordanian territory against Israeli villages and their civilian inhabitants. Israel subsequently stated, on 26 April, that the operations of the irregular forces engaged in terror warfare against the civilian population of Israel were co-ordinated with the Jordanian authorities, and Israel was compelled to act in self-defence.

Israel also drew attention to a press report quoting the Foreign Minister of Jordan as having said on 24 April that he agreed with President Nasser of the United Arab Republic that the cease-fire between the Arabs and Israel was non-existent. Israel considered that declaration to be a development of the utmost gravity. It stressed that the cease-fire was unconditional except for being based on reciprocity; the Security Council had rejected all proposals to link it to any other matters whatever, including the question of withdrawal.

During June, July and August, Israel and Jordan submitted communications to the Security Council and the Secretary-General, each complaining of attacks by the other party on civilian targets resulting in many fatalities and considerable destruction. Each side accused the other of deliberate attacks on the civilian population and asserted that the other party bore full responsibility for the aggression it was committing.

Jordan, after complaining of Israeli air raids in early June against the Jordanian villages of Shunah Shamaliyah and Kuraimeh which killed seven civilians and wounded 33 others, said those attacks had increased tension in the area and caused a serious threat to international peace.

In a letter dated 20 July, Israel said that following an agreement between Jordan and the terror organizations, the attacks launched from Jordan against Israeli villages had increased. There had been a total of 114 attacks in the period from 7 to 20 July, compelling Israel to act in self-defence. On 24 August, Israel stated further that 225 additional attacks had been carried out since 7 August 1970, when a new international effort - to which Jordan was a party - had been initiated to maintain the cease-fire.

COMPLAINTS BY ISRAEL AND THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(JANUARY-AUGUST 1970)

During January 1970, the Secretary-General issued supplemental information containing reports received from the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO).

The reports, received almost daily during the month, indicated that there had been a continuous exchange of fire across the Suez Canal, involving the use of artillery, tanks, mortars and rockets, as well as small arms. During the same period, there had been intense aerial activity involving flights mainly by Israeli fighters and bombers which had crossed the Canal to attack positions of the United Arab Republic forces on the West Bank of the Canal. The reports also indicated that there had been shots in the vicinity of the United Nations observation posts, although, it was noted, no military personnel of either side had been near those posts.

On 26 January, the United Arab Republic charged that on the previous day Israeli aircraft, in violation of international law, had attacked an unarmed United Arab Republic civilian vessel while it was sailing in the Red Sea, wounding six civilian members of the crew.

Israel replied on 2 February that the complaint was an unfounded attempt to divert attention from the United Arab Republic's repudiation of the cease-fire, and that the vessel in question was an auxiliary craft in the service of that country's army. Israeli forces were under strict orders not to strike at civilian vessels.

On 20 February, the United Arab Republic complained that on 12 February Israeli Phantom jet aircraft had raided the National Metal Products Factory at Abu Za'bal, near Cairo in the United Arab Republic, killing 80 persons, with a greater number of workers wounded. The attack against the factory - situated far from any military installation - had demonstrated the kind of use to which Israel was putting the aircraft provided for so-called defensive purposes, and belied Israel's claims that its forces were under strict orders not to strike at civilian targets.

On the same day, the USSR representative transmitted to the Secretary-General a press communique from the Telegraphic Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS) about the alleged attack on the metallurgical plant in which it was charged that the Israeli leaders were apparently prepared to violate all frontiers and commit any crimes in order to undermine a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. The communiqué asserted that as long as the aggressor continued to flout the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and the relevant United Nations resolutions, the USSR would be obliged to provide support to the Arab States to help them defend their security and rightful interests.

In its reply to the United Arab Republic's letter, Israel, on 21 February, said it had taken air action against a military camp at Al-Khankah in self-defence, but it had later transpired that because of a possible technical error the bombs on one of the aircraft had been released outside the target. Consequently the Egyptian authorities were informed through representatives of the International Red Cross and UNTSO headquarters that, among the bombs dropped, one weighing 400 kilogrammes and set to explode after an interval of 24 hours should be defused.

Replying to the USSR letter of 20 February, Israel, on 27 February, said that the TASS communiqué had disregarded Israel's policy - which aimed at concluding a peace agreement in the Middle East - and, instead, had exalted USSR support of the so-called Arab war of attrition.

During February and March, the Secretary-General continued to circulate supplemental information from the Chief of Staff of UNTSO, relating to firing incidents and indicating a further intensification of aerial activity in the Suez Canal sector. He also reported that, as a result of the firing exchanges, bombs had landed near some of the observation posts.

Also during March, the UNTSO Chief of Staff announced the reopening of an observation post which had been temporarily closed on 11 December 1969. On 31 March, he reported that the United Arab Republic authorities had complained that United Nations vehicles had been moving in the midst of a number of Israeli vehicles and that the local commander had not fired because of the presence of the United Nations vehicles. The United Nations Officer-in-Charge of Kantara Control Centre had replied that a United Nations relief patrol, on its way to an observation post, had inadvertently become involved with the Israeli vehicles. United Nations personnel were under instruction to avoid other vehicles.

On 8 April, the United Arab Republic complained that Israeli Phantom jets had attacked a primary school in the village of Al Husayniyah in Sharqiya Province in the United Arab Republic, resulting in the death of 31 school children and the wounding of many other civilians.

On the following day, Israel replied that the air action had been against Egyptian military installations situated at Salahiye and that air photographs taken before and after the action had clearly indicated identifiable military installations. Furthermore, press releases from the United Arab Republic had indicated that authorities there had prevented journalists from visiting the site of the reported Israeli air action. Press releases had also mentioned that some of the wounded boys seen by journalists in the hospital were dressed in khaki uniforms and apparently had participated in paramilitary training in the Salahiye camp.

On 14 April, Israel further stated that United Arab Republic authorities had taken five days to arrange for a visit of press representatives to the target area, thus allowing themselves time to remove traces of military installations.

On the following day, the United Arab Republic informed the Secretary-General that 16 other school children had died of wounds suffered during the Israeli attack and attached photographs to show that the children were so young as to refute the Israeli allegation that they had been undergoing paramilitary training in a military compound. According to a press dispatch from Cairo, the correspondents had found no sign of military equipment on the site attacked and had seen only agricultural work.

On 15 April, the USSR representative transmitted to the Security Council the texts of statements issued by the Soviet Committee of Solidarity with Asian and African Countries, the USSR Union of Journalists, the Committee of Soviet Women and the USSR Academy of Pedagogic Sciences, all protesting against the bombing by Israel of a primary school in the United Arab Republic.
In its reply on 17 April, Israel contended that the USSR had aided the propaganda services of the United Arab Republic. The prime responsibility for the losses sustained by both sides in the "war of attrition" waged by the United Arab Republic rested with that country, Israel stated.

On 1 May, the United Arab Republic charged that during the previous few days Israeli authorities had embarked upon a campaign of falsification about the so-called increasing involvement of USSR pilots in the Egyptian air force, with the twofold aim of providing justification for receiving more Phantom jets from the United States and diverting the attention of world public opinion from its persistent aggression and its defiance of the United Nations.
In its reply on 5 May, Israel stated that the United Arab Republic had neither denied the facts concerning USSR military involvement in Egypt which, it charged, had introduced a new dimension into the regional conflict, nor indicated any change in its policy of hostility towards Israel.

On 4 May, the United Arab Republic transmitted the text of an appeal addressed on 1 May to the President of the United States by the President of the United Arab Republic. The appeal asked the United States to induce Israel to withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967; if it considered that that was not within its power, then it should decline further military, political and economic support to Israel. However, if the United States was not prepared to make either move, then it would become abundantly clear that it had agreed to and supported Israel's continued occupation of those lands in order that Israel could impose its will on the Arab States.

On 8 June, the Secretary-General informed the members of the Security Council of a letter he had addressed to the States whose nationals were serving as United Nations Military Observers in the Suez Canal sector. The Observers, he said, were rendering dedicated and courageous service to the cause of peace through their work with an operation instituted by the Security Council and being maintained to the extent possible in the absence of any contrary action by the Council. The physical safety of peace-keeping personnel was always a foremost consideration, and particularly so under the hazardous conditions prevailing in the Suez Canal sector. The Secretary-General drew attention to a statement included in his report of 27 May in connexion with the closure of some observation posts that representations and protests concerning firings on or close to United Nations personnel, installations and equipment had been of no avail in reducing the number of such incidents. On the contrary, there had recently been an increase in such firings from the United Arab Republic side.

While recognizing the difficulties involved in limiting firing in what amounted to a war situation, the Secretary-General registered his deep concern at the constant and increasing danger to which United Nations personnel were exposed in the Suez Canal sector and his distress that the risks were even greater than at any previous time. Because of conditions beyond his control, therefore, he was no longer able to guarantee the physical safety of the men engaged in the observation operation, and he was painfully aware that in the existing situation - where near misses were an almost daily occurrence at the observation posts on the Canal - it was something of a miracle that casualties among the Observers had not been much higher.

The Secretary-General added that he had felt obliged to write frankly on the matter so that the Governments might be in no doubt as to the situation in which their officers were serving the United Nations.

Replies to the Secretary-General's letter were received from the representatives of Argentina, Austria, Chile, Finland, Ireland and Sweden, who stated that the physical protection of the Observers and the preservation of their status were matters of deep concern. These representatives expressed their confidence that the Secretary-General would take all necessary measures in that respect. They also expressed their concern at the developments in the Middle East and stressed the urgency of a peaceful settlement in accordance with the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.1/

From the beginning of April until 7 August, the Secretary-General continued to circulate further supplemental information from the UNTSO Chief of Staff, indicating that firing incidents had continued, involving the use of artillery, mortar, machine-guns and rifles. Aerial activity in the Suez Canal sector had been intensified, involving in most cases Israeli jet air- craft carrying out bombing attacks against targets on the West Bank of the Canal and anti-aircraft fire from forces of the United Arab Republic.

During the same period, the Secretary-General's reports indicated that there had been occasional firing at or near United Nations observation posts on either side of the Canal, although no military personnel of either side had been in the vicinity of the post at the time of the incident. As a result, some damage had been inflicted on some of the United Nations observation posts, equipment and installations.

On 16 July, the Secretary-General announced with deep shock and regret the tragic death of Lieutenant-Colonel J. E. Bogvad of Sweden, a United Nations Military Observer, who had been killed that day when a reconnaissance party he was leading came under small-arms fire from positions of the United Arab Republic Forces in the area of Observation Post Blue. At the same time, another Observer, Major R. S. Fox of New Zealand, had received wounds in his left arm. On 4 August, the Secretary-General issued a further report containing the report of a board of inquiry which had been set up to examine the circumstances surrounding the death of Lieutenant-Colonel Bogvad.

On 7 August, the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that as a result of a peace initiative of the United States Government, Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic agreed to resume contacts with his Special Representative, Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring, and to observe strictly, for 90 days from 7 August, the cease-fire resolutions of the Security Council. The Secretary-General said that he and Ambassador Jarring felt there was now a reasonable basis on which to renew immediately his contacts with the parties with a view towards initiating discussions under his auspices on the issues. (See also pp. 252-54.)

On 4 November, by its resolution 2628 (XXV), the General Assembly among other things recommended to the parties that they extend the cease-fire for a period of three months in order that they might enter into talks under the auspices of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General with a view to giving effect to the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.2/ (See page 261.)

Quiet prevailed in the Suez Canal sector from 7 August on, and few reports were circulated by the Secretary-General on the situation there. These generally related to the relocation or reopening of observation posts which had been closed previously on a temporary basis.

COMPLAINTS BY ISRAEL AND LEBANON

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(JANUARY-MAY 1970)

From the beginning of January until 12 May 1970, the Security Council received a number of communications from Israel and Lebanon complaining of violations of the cease-fire. Lebanon complained that its villages situated on the southern borders had been subjected to bombing and shelling by Israeli jet aircraft, causing casualties and material damage. Israel charged that villages in its border area near Lebanon had been the object of increasingly frequent attacks from Lebanese territory, causing casualties and property damage.

On 3, 9 and 26 January, Lebanon complained of an intensification of Israeli attacks against its territory which, it said, were committed in flagrant violation of the Lebanon-Israel Armistice Agreement, of international law and of the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

On 12 January, Lebanon transmitted the text of a note addressed to the Governments of what it described as the four great powers which stated that increasing acts of aggression had been accompanied by public threats against the security and territorial integrity of Lebanon. The note said that violence was being directed against the civilian population and was no longer based on even the customary false pretexts about reprisals for acts by members of the Palestinian resistance movement, for which Lebanon could not be held responsible. The presence of the Palestinians in Lebanon, the note pointed out, was the direct result of Israel's aggressive policy, which had provoked their exodus, and Israel's continued refusal to comply with United Nations decisions. Recalling that it had made specific denunciations of Israel's aggressions on each occasion to the Security Council, Lebanon added that in placing the matter before the four powers which had special responsibilities in the Council, it was invoking its own rights and legitimate interests, as well as the elementary conditions of life for civilized mankind.

Replying to Lebanon's charges, Israel on 5, 15 and 29 January countercharged that villages in its border area near Lebanon had been subjected to increasingly frequent attacks from Lebanon. With regard to the Lebanese note of 12 January, Israel asserted that Lebanon was attempting to evade its responsibility for the increasing tension caused by continued aggression from Lebanese territory, which was serving as a base for the training of terrorist organizations. Those attacks, Israel said, appeared to have been carried out with the Lebanese Government's approval, in conformity with an agreement concluded in Cairo on 3 November 1969 between the Government of Lebanon and the terrorist organizations, by which those organizations had been permitted to operate in and from Lebanese territory. In those circumstances, Lebanon could not shirk its responsibility for the deterioration of the border situation, and Israel was under obligation to take defensive measures for the protection of its territory and its population.

Further charges and countercharges were made by Israel on 27 February, 4 and 10 March, and by Lebanon on 28 February and 7 March, to the effect that their respective villages on the borders had been subjected to attacks originating from the territory of the other party.

On 17 March, Lebanon complained that Israeli artillery had shelled the heights situated between Rachaiya el Foukhar and Kafr Hamam, and on the following day had shelled other villages in southern Lebanon. On 18 March, Lebanon transmitted the text of a statement issued that day by the Lebanese Government, drawing attention to Israeli propaganda consisting of accusations and threats designed to prepare Israel for every kind of violence and to lead international opinion to regard such violence as acts of reprisal against Lebanon because of the presence and activity of the Palestinians. If the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon had become combatants struggling for their homeland it was because Israel had refused to implement the United Nations resolutions concerning their right to return to Palestine, as well as other United Nations resolutions adopted before and after the hostilities of 5 June 1967. To restore peace in the area, the statement concluded, Israel should carry out its obligations under those resolutions and under international law.

On 25 March, Israel replied that Lebanon, instead of recognizing its obligations as a Member of the United Nations, had served notice that it supported continued warfare against Israel, in flagrant violation of the cease-fire established by the Security Council. Whatever Lebanon's internal situation might be, that should not affect its international obligation to prevent the use of its territory as a base of aggression. Israel could not be expected to leave its territory and its citizens undefended, and it was incumbent upon Lebanon to abide by its obligations under the Security Council's cease-fire.

On 10 May, Israel charged that between 22 April and 10 May a series of attacks had been carried out from Lebanese territory, resulting in eight civilian and military personnel being killed and 17 wounded, in addition to considerable property damage. Israel held Lebanon responsible for those cease-fire violations and reserved its right to act in self-defence.

CONSIDERATION BY SECURITY COUNCIL
(12-19 MAY 1970)

On 12 May, the representative of Lebanon requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider the grave situation endangering the peace and security of Lebanon and of the area. He charged that early that morning Israeli armed forces had launched an invasion of southern Lebanon, penetrating its territory with armoured and infantry units, and bombarding towns and villages by air force and artillery, in flagrant violation of the Lebanon-Israel Armistice Agreement and the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

Also on 12 May, the representative of Israel requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider attacks from Lebanese territory against the territory and population of Israel, in flagrant violation of the cease-fire and the Charter. Particulars of those acts of aggression, he added, had already been communicated to the Council.

The Security Council met from 12 to 19 May 1970 to consider the complaints of Lebanon and Israel. The representatives of both countries, and subsequently of Morocco and Saudi Arabia, were invited at their request to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

At the beginning of the meeting on 12 May, the Secretary-General said he had been informed by the UNTSO Chief of Staff that the Acting Chairman of the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission had been informed by the Lebanese delegation that Israeli forces had launched an attack early that day on Lebanese territory in the general area of Mount Hermon. The Acting Chairman had also reported receiving information that the senior Israeli representative to the Commission had stated in a telephone conversation with a Lebanese representative that the current Israeli action in the Al Arkoub area was aimed at the destruction of fedayeen commandos and that it was not the intention of Israeli forces to act against the Lebanese army or population, provided that they did not support the fedayeen.

The Secretary-General added that it was understood that at the time of the above report, Israeli ground troops, supported by artillery and air force units, had reached El Khraibe and that action was continuing. The Secretary-General recalled his long but unsuccessful effort to increase substantially the number of United Nations Observers on both sides of the border. This was one of the reasons for his lack of detailed information about the current action in the area.

The representative of Lebanon said that early on 12 May, Israeli ground and air forces and heavy artillery had attacked three districts in southern Lebanon, aiming their attacks at the civilian population and at the defensive positions of the Lebanese army, causing vast destruction of property and loss of life. Israel's current aggression had been preceded by threats in the past few months - in particular, a threat to turn southern Lebanon into an area of desolation comparable to that of the Suez Canal zone.

The Lebanese representative further charged that, since its attack on Beirut airport in December 1968, Israel had carried out numerous attacks against Lebanon. On 31 December 1968, he recalled, the Security Council had issued a solemn warning to Israel that if those acts were to be repeated the Council would have to consider further steps to give effect to its
decisions.3/ The Lebanese Government had that day delivered to the Ambassadors of France, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States a note in which it placed on Israel full responsibility for the current acts of aggression on Lebanese territory, and requested the Security Council - particularly four of its permanent members - not only to condemn Israel but to find sufficient reason to impose on it respect for international law and the United Nations Charter.

It would not be sufficient, the Lebanese representative continued, to adopt a resolution condemning Israel. The action Lebanon sought, he said, was the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli troops from Lebanese territory, a strong condemnation of Israel and the application of Chapter VII of the Charter.4/

The representative of Israel said he had requested an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider the armed attacks carried out from Lebanese territory against his country and its population. Israel, he noted, had repeatedly drawn the Council's attention to the intensification of aggression from Lebanon. Since 1 April there had been 61 acts of aggression against 22 Israeli villages and towns.

Israel, he went on, had called upon Lebanon to comply with its cease-fire obligations and also had asked United Nations organs and Member States to apprise Lebanon of the gravity of the situation. The acts of aggression, however, had not ended; on the contrary, they had grown in number, compelling Israel to act in self-defence. Its action on 12 May was directed solely against the concentration of terrorist organizations in south-east Lebanon, east of the Hasbani River. Israeli forces, whose mission was to comb the area of the terrorist squads, would leave the area on completion of their mission. Lebanon was responsible for armed attacks carried out from its territory against Israel; that responsibility was particularly evident in the light of the official agreements between Lebanon and the irregular forces operating from its territory against Israel.

The representative of Israel then said he had just received a communiqué from his Government to the effect that the military operation had been concluded and that Israeli forces were deploying to leave the area.

The representative of Spain then proposed a draft resolution as an interim measure and asked that it be put to the vote immediately. The draft resolution would have the Security Council demand "the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory."

The proposal to proceed immediately to vote on the Spanish draft resolution received 7 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions, and was not adopted, having failed to receive the required majority.

Israel said the draft resolution proposed by Spain was clearly divorced from reality. It would be unfortunate if the Council should vote on and adopt a draft resolution marked not only by an absence of equity but also by a refusal to recognize the facts of the situation.

The Spanish representative reiterated that his proposal was only an interim measure submitted in view of the seriousness of the situation; Israel had acted in violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, which enjoined all Members to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State.5/ He had introduced the draft because a principle of the Charter had been violated, and his action was without prejudice to whatever further action the Council might decide to take.

The United States then proposed an amendment which would add a phrase at the end of the draft resolution so that the Security Council would demand the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory "and an immediate cessation of all military operations in the area."

The USSR representative proposed a sub-amendment to the United States amendment which would add the words: "and stopping of Israeli aggression against Lebanon."

The USSR sub-amendment was put to the vote and was rejected by 3 votes to 0, with 12 abstentions. The United States amendment was rejected by 2 votes to 0, with 13 abstentions. The Spanish draft was then unanimously adopted as resolution 279 (1970).

Continuing the debate, the spokesman for Morocco said that despite the warning given to Israel in previous Council resolutions, and despite the fact that some major powers had explained to Israel the consequences of its action, Israel had seen fit to attack Lebanon and had issued a challenge to both the Council and the major powers. In that respect, Israel seemed to have been encouraged by certain international circumstances that insured its impunity. At the same time, Israel had been trying to provoke disturbances and conflict between Palestinians and the Lebanese Government. Those attempts had not been productive, because the Palestinians - who were not refugees in Lebanon but combatants on Arab territory - had reached an understanding with the Government of Lebanon to exercise their rights.

He went on to say that the Council had already adopted a resolution asking Israel to withdraw its troops; that was intended to put a stop to Israel's aggression. However, according to information which he now had, the Israeli troops had not yet withdrawn. The Council was under an obligation to see that its resolutions were fully implemented, that aggression was not only stopped and condemned but that it did not recur.

The Lebanese representative said that according to information he had just received from Beirut, Israel's forces were still in southern Lebanon and showed no sign of withdrawing, as the representative of Israel had claimed. He expressed his Government's gratitude for the Council's prompt action, adding that it was for the Council now to ascertain whether the Israeli troops were withdrawing as the resolution had demanded.

Referring to the Secretary-General's proposal to station Observers on both sides of the border, he said that Lebanon had agreed to strengthening the Armistice machinery but that Israel - for the last two and one-half years - had refused to allow Observers to be stationed on its side of the border.


Saudi Arabia said the case before the Security Council was one of aggression by proxy. By its action, Israel had wanted the Arab States to suppress the Palestinians, but no Arab State would ever be able to suppress a people fighting for its homeland and establishing its right to self-determination.

Israel said the Security Council had adopted a one-sided text that ignored the facts and had refused to call for a cessation of all military operations in the area. Israeli troops had stayed on Lebanese soil in order to avoid any shooting incidents at night.

Syria said in reply that darkness had not prevented the Israelis from attacking Lebanon. Israel must abide by the decision of the Security Council; otherwise the Council, acting under Article 40 of the Charter,6/ would have to take account of Israel's failure to comply with the provisional measures. Syria would appreciate it if the Secretary-General would communicate to the Council any reports he might have received from UNTSO about the current situation in the area.

On 13 May, the Secretary-General reported to the Council that because of the lack of adequate means of observation on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon sector, the Acting Chief of Staff of UNTSO had been able to provide only limited information about military activities in the area. The Secretary-General also regretted that he had not yet received any information from the Acting Chief of Staff on the implementation of the resolution adopted by the Security Council on 12 May, explaining that verification of reports was not possible in the absence of direct means of observation.

Also on 13 May, in a statement communicated to the President of the Security Council and read out in the Council, the Prime Minister of Israel, after acknowledging receipt of the text of the resolution of 12 May, said that the Israeli operation, which had been carried out according to plan, had been concluded and that Israeli forces were deploying to leave the area. The forces involved in that defensive action had returned to their bases; Israel continued to hold Lebanon responsible for all acts of violence perpetrated from Lebanese territory against the population, territory and armed forces of Israel.

The representative of the United Kingdom agreed with the demand for withdrawal of Israeli troops from an action which he could not possibly condone. However, the perpetration and intensification of conflict had made it urgent to find a way out of the current situation, and it was therefore time to redouble the efforts to bring about peace and justice in the area on the basis of the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.7/ He hoped that the four powers, permanent members of the Council, would be able to report to the Secretary-General soon, enabling the Secretary-General to ask his representative, Ambassador Jarring, to resume his consultations with the parties in the area.

Sierra Leone expressed satisfaction over the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. It could not condone the new attack on Lebanon, which had twice been the victim of attacks within the last two years. It hoped the Council would continue its work towards peaceful conciliation and that the four powers would resume their efforts for a speedy solution of the problem.

The USSR representative asserted that Israeli aggression against Lebanon with United States-made aircraft and with scorched-earth and bombardment tactics was against all norms of international law and in defiance of Security Council warnings on two previous occasions. Instead of complying with the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967, Israel had continued its refusal to withdraw its troops from occupied Arab territories. Israel had committed its new aggression on the pretext of fighting Arab patriots and resisters. However, if Israel were to withdraw from all the occupied Arab territories, the question of resistance would come to an end. Israel's new aggression had been strengthened by continuation of deliveries to it of the most modern United States weapons and by official promises of future arms from that country.

The USSR spokesman reiterated that his Government was firmly in favour of a lasting peace in the Middle East based on the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967, and that the only road to a peaceful settlement was the withdrawal of the aggressor from all occupied territories. The Council must also condemn Israel for its new act of aggression and must take further and more effective measures to call a halt to that aggression.

The spokesman for Finland said violent incidents had been occurring daily in the Middle East to which the Security Council had responded only by recording them. It was currently meeting to consider a complaint of a large-scale incursion by Israeli armed forces into Lebanese territory, and Finland welcomed the prompt and unanimous action taken by the Council in demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. The Council, however, had dealt with the symptoms of the problem rather than its core. The latest Israeli raid had illustrated the break- down of the international arrangements established in the aftermath of the war of June 1967 to end the fighting and create the prerequisites for making peace. The passage of time had eroded the cease-fire, and the impact of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 was itself in danger of fading.

To progress towards peace, he continued, Finland had always supported the four-power talks, because no genuine settlement on the conflict was possible unless it was backed by some measure of agreement among the permanent members of the Council. It was essential that the four powers should make a new effort to reverse the trend towards increasing violence and set in motion a process leading to a just and lasting peace in the area.

Syria's representative said that while the attack on Lebanon by Israel was under consideration, it might be recalled that the General Assembly, by resolutions it adopted in 1969, had given special responsibility to the Security Council. In a resolution of 10 December 1969 (2535 B (XXIV)),8/ the Assembly, after drawing the Council's attention to the grave situation resulting from Israeli practices and policies in occupied territories, had requested the Council to take effective measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter. In a resolution of 11 December 1969 (2546(XXIV)),9/ it had condemned Israeli policies and practices of collective and area punishment. The Council, therefore, must not miss the current opportunity to affirm the rule of law and to take effective measures against aggression.

Lebanon said that contrary to what Israel had claimed - that its armed forces could not withdraw in daytime - the Israelis were, at 3:30 a.m., still bombing villages in southern Lebanon, and it had been confirmed that the Israeli air force had bombed and shelled Lebanese military positions and civilian centres during the night.

At the Security Council's meeting on 14 May, the representative of Zambia reminded the Council that he had earlier condemned Israel's policy of punitive reprisals, which represented a disregard of the authority of the Council and established dangerous precedents. The new Israeli attack on Lebanese territory was a grave violation of the cease-fire and a further impediment to peace efforts. In spite of those efforts, there had been no progress towards a settlement. After the four powers assumed the special responsibility of helping to promote a settlement, the situation had visibly deteriorated. Zambia urged the four powers to make a serious and deliberate effort to achieve a settlement and to help Ambassador Jarring resume his duties.

The representative of Poland said his vote for the Spanish draft resolution was a clear indication of Poland's condemnation of Israel's act of invasion against Lebanon. Israel's aggression was one of the links in the chain of aggression committed every day by Israel in the Middle East. The Council had heard Israel term its act a "clearing-out operation to rid the area of terrorists." That made the analogy between the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the United States invasion of Cambodia obvious. The Council was therefore duty-bound to take effective measures to condemn the Israeli aggression. Poland, he added, maintained its support of a peaceful settlement and continued to believe that the primary condition for such a settlement was the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all the Arab territories occupied after June 1967.

The United States representative recalled that the Security Council had met in August 1969 to consider guerrilla-type attacks on Israel launched from Lebanese territory and Israeli air strikes on several Lebanese villages aimed at the source of the strikes. The Council was meeting again because the situation had been further exacerbated. There had been more fedayeen attacks from Lebanon against Israel, and Israel had mounted a major military operation into Lebanon to end those attacks. The United States, he stressed, could not but oppose all acts of violence across frontiers in violation of the cease-fire from any source; the only way to end the violence was to make an all-out effort to bring about a peaceful political settlement of the conflict.
A first step, he continued, should be cessation of the cycle of attack and counter-attack and a restoration of an effective cease-fire on the Lebanon-Israel border. That could be done with the help of United Nations Observers. The United States supported the Secretary-General's earlier suggestion to station an adequate number of Observers on both sides of the border between Israel and Lebanon and urged that consultations should be renewed between the parties and the Secretary-General to that end.

He went on to say that the United States continued to attach great importance to Lebanon's independence and territorial integrity and could not condone any threat to its integrity from any source. At the same time, it supported Israel's independence and territorial integrity and would use its influence with the parties to the conflict to reduce violence and tensions.

In the search for a lasting settlement in accordance with the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967, the United States believed that all the parties should re-examine their attitudes towards what sort of peaceful settlement they were prepared to accept and should know there could be no peace in the area until each of the parties concerned was prepared to abandon its maximum demands and agree to compromise solutions that served the interests of all.

The United States representative said that the Secretary of State and other United States spokesmen had said that the United States supported the principle of withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in June 1967, in accordance with the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967, and that it was fully committed to the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. It also believed that the parties to a settlement should have the possibility to agree mutually on insubstantial alterations or minor rectifications of the boundaries which previously existed between them.

As a party to the bilateral and four-power negotiations, he continued, the United States had shown willingness to accept suggestions on many points not identical to its own. It had exercised restraint by deciding not to respond favourably to Israel's request for additional aircraft.

The United States appealed to the USSR, Israel and its Arab neighbours, and to the Palestinian Arabs, to join with it in a redoubled effort to bring about a just settlement of all the problems of the Middle East.

The representative of Burundi said his Government could not condone Israel's policy of disproportionate reprisals, because the policy of conquest and infinite extension of war could not guarantee peace. Burundi could not but offer its sympathy to the victims of aggression and reiterate the demand that Israel should withdraw its troops.

Nepal, which supported the Council's demand for immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops, said it had received with satisfaction the Israeli declaration that its forces had been withdrawn from Lebanese territory. At the same time, Nepal had to express its strong disapproval of the action of a Member State in mounting a large-scale military incursion inside the territory of another Member State on the ground of military reprisal. The Security Council had condemned punitive actions on several occasions. However, condemnation would, in itself, achieve nothing, and the Council should avoid running the risk of losing track of its goal as set forth in its resolution of 22 November 1967.

In the circumstances, Nepal continued, all Council members should support and encourage the process of reconciliation and peace through the continuing talks between four of the permanent members of the Council. In that respect, Nepal was encouraged to learn that some definite proposals on certain vital aspects of the problem had been submitted and that the parties concerned had defined more precisely their positions on those questions. Nepal also hoped that Ambassador Jarring would soon be able to resume his mission.

Nicaragua said the willingness of Israel to comply with the Council's resolution of 12 May was a hopeful first step towards negotiations and agreement. The Council had heard charges and countercharges of violations of international law. It was obvious that, if the situation was not normalized, it might result in a serious threat to international peace and security. It was also clear that a partial solution could not contribute to the establishment of a lasting peace in the region. Therefore, it was necessary that the Council urge the parties to resort to the means established by international law for the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Lebanon said that in the area Israel had occupied in its last military action, three Lebanese civilians and seven soldiers had been killed and three civilians and 18 soldiers injured. There had also been considerable loss of property. It was clear that Israel's armed attack had not been directed against the Palestine freedom fighters, as Israel had claimed, but against Lebanon itself, a United Nations Member State.

At the same Council meeting - on 14 May - a communication was read out according to which the Acting Chairman of the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission reported that the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon had been officially confirmed by Lebanese authorities and that the official time of withdrawal was given as 1030 hours GMT on 13 May.


The representative of the USSR said that, if the impression he had that the United States was in favour of the total withdrawal of Israeli troops from Arab territories was correct, then the USSR would be in favour of continuing the four-power talks. However, the question of alterations referred to by the United States representative would give Israel carte blanche to demand alterations of frontiers. The resolution of 22 November 1967 had explicitly asked for Israel's withdrawal from occupied Arab territories. If agreement could be reached by the four powers on immediate and uncondits from all occupied Arab territories, agreement would then be reached on other outstanding questions, and a Middle East settlement could be worked out in a kind of package deal.

In reply to the representative of Lebanon, Israel said that the few casualties mentioned resulting from Israeli defensive actions had, in fact, been members of the terrorist organizations who had not laid down their arms in response to Israeli appeals. The structures demolished, which amounted to 16 camps and bases, had been structures used by the irregular forces. Those forces had themselves issued press releases stating that they had been the target of the attack.

At the Council's meeting on 15 May, the spokesman for Colombia said that, in the case before it, the Security Council should look beyond the immediate conflict to consider stable solutions; interim measures could not, by themselves, eliminate the real cause of the conflict. The measures taken by the Council in the past had not been complied with and, despite efforts by the Secretary-General and by the four powers, the six-day war, which had been prolonged to three years, threatened to spread both in time and space.

The Colombian representative suggested that a recent Brazilian proposal to set up an ad hoc committee be considered, to function concurrently with the four-power talks. A three-member Council committee could be created to take note of the efforts at negotiations made by the Secretary-General and could be given access to the political formulas of the four powers in order to submit them to the Council in a series of proposed solutions to all aspects of the Middle East question.

The Spanish representative said he was gratified at Israel's compliance with the Council's resolution of 12 May. Spain deplored all violations of the cease-fire, which often resulted in the loss of innocent lives; however, cease-fire resolutions were essentially of a temporary nature, intended to give the Security Council sufficient time to prepare a final resolution. But two and one-half years had elapsed since the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967, the Spanish spokesman said, and all efforts to implement it had so far failed.

It was well known, he continued, that the non-permanent members of the Council had been deeply concerned at the lack of progress in the four-power talks. Spain hoped that there would be some progress in those talks and that Ambassador Jarring would be allowed to resume his mission. The main cause of the current situation had been the lack of compliance with the resolution of 22 November 1967. It was deplorable that an important decision of the Council remained unimplemented and that territories taken by force had not been vacated.

The representative of China said his country deplored the dangerous and futile policy of retaliation, especially in the present case when it was directed against Lebanon - a country that had not participated in the June 1967 war and had played a moderating role in the affairs of the Middle East. After expressing his satisfaction at the withdrawal of Israel's troops from Lebanon in compliance with the Council's decision of 12 May, he urged the Council to look beyond the current conflict and search for an acceptable final settlement. The Chinese representative pointed out that almost three years after the war of June 1967, the prospects were as bleak as ever. In fact, the situation had been steadily deteriorating. He appealed to the parties concerned for compromise and conciliation and expressed the hope that it would be possible for Ambassador Jarring to continue his consultations.

The President of the Council, speaking as the representative of France, said the Council's resolution of 12 August had been adopted unanimously. It was not a one-sided resolution but an expression of the collective will. The Council should continue to strive to bring about such agreement among its members which alone could help it in fulfilling the task entrusted to it by the Charter.

With regard to the military action against Lebanon, he said that France could not remain indifferent to that which affected Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and integrity; it therefore considered Israel's intervention inadmissible, not only because it had been contrary to the Charter but also because it had escalated the conflict, making it more difficult to achieve a peaceful settlement. He expressed satisfaction at the withdrawal of Israel's troops from Lebanon, but stressed that the Council's concern should now be to find a solution to the Middle East conflict, a solution which could only be a political one.

France, its representative went on, believed that Israel had the right to existence, to recognition and to security. It had the right to secure and guaranteed frontiers, but those frontiers could not be the frontiers of occupation or annexation. Israel, which owed its foundation to the United Nations, must undertake unreservedly to apply the terms of the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. That would be a great step towards the solution of the Palestinian problem. In that respect, the efforts of Ambassador Jarring had not been futile, and the current debate had shown a large measure of agreement. France hoped that discussion of the Lebanese complaint would advance the efforts that were being made at all levels to find a peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem.

On 19 May, at the Security Council's next meeting, Morocco's representative said the question of the supplying of weapons to Israel by the United States had been at the very heart of the Middle East situation. Many parties concerned had reiterated the gravity of such a step. The President of the United States himself had decided to suspend part of Israel's request for planes. However, the question had been left open, and there were, unfortunately, indications that the decision was now being reconsidered. As the Council was considering Israel's use of weapons to attack Lebanon, he, on behalf of all the Arab Members, wished to draw the Council's attention to the serious and inevitable consequences that might result from such a decision. The strengthening of Israel's military power would necessarily compel the Arab countries to take into account the feelings and demands of their own people.

At the Council's meeting on 19 May, Zambia submitted a draft resolution which was adopted later in the meeting by 11 votes to 0, with 4 abstentions, as resolution 280(1970).

By the preambular part of the text, the Security Council among other things expressed its grave concern about the deteriorating situation resulting from violations of its resolutions and stated its conviction that the Israeli military attack against Lebanon was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned in nature. It also recalled its resolution of 12 May 1970, demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.

By the operative part of the text, the Council: (1) deplored the failure of Israel to abide by the Council's resolution of 31 December 1968 (262(1968))10/ and of 26 August 1969 (270 (1969));11/ (2) condemned Israel for its pre-meditated military action in violation of its obligations under the Charter; (3) declared that such armed attacks could no longer be tolerated and repeated its solemn warning to Israel that if they were to be repeated the Council would, in accordance with its resolution of 31 December 1968 and this resolution, consider taking adequate and effective steps or measures in accordance with the relevant Articles of the Charter to implement its resolutions; and (4) deplored the loss of life and damage to property inflicted as a result of violations of Council resolutions.

(See page 243 for text of resolution.)

Prior to the vote, Colombia said it would have preferred a more balanced text which, while censuring Israel's military action, should have issued a warning against frontier operations by Palestinian guerrillas. Colombia was abstaining because it believed the text would not advance the cause of peace, as it did not incorporate any new ideas.

The USSR said the initial proposals in consultations among Council members had aimed at an unambiguous condemnation of Israel's action against Lebanon and the adoption of effective measures under Chapter VII of the Charter.12/ However, through the efforts of the United States and other members, those important provisions had been eliminated. Nevertheless, the USSR felt that the final text, which provided a condemnation of Israel's action and a warning of further effective measures if the attacks were to be repeated, might play a certain positive part in sobering the aggressor and his protectors.

Following the vote, Finland said that the Council, although condemning Israel's armed attack against Lebanon, also remained gravely concerned about all violations of its resolution. Furthermore, Council members had expressed deep concern about the continuing deterioration of the situation and the Council's inability to come to grips with the problem. Moreover, there was agreement that urgent efforts for peace must be renewed on the basis of the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

The United Kingdom representative said he had not been prepared to vote for a draft resolution that was wholly one-sided, but having worked to make the draft acceptable, the United Kingdom had voted for it. It was regrettable, he added, that the Council had not been able to agree about the future; efforts to reach an accepted settlement had not succeeded, but the aim of reaching agreement must always be kept in mind. In that respect, the four-power talks should not be impeded or frustrated; the four powers should be encouraged to proceed with all speed and with a greater sense of conciliation and urgency.

The Syrian representative said the text fell short of what Syria had considered necessary to meet the situation. It should have contained a reference to Chapter VII of the Charter. That had been omitted because it had been said that the Council would be unable to implement a decision based on Chapter VII. Such a view of the Council's incapacity would, in Syria's view, tend to undermine its authority forever. Nevertheless, he said, his Government would interpret the third paragraph to mean that the Council's next step would be taken under Chapter VII.


The United States, after reiterating its support for Lebanon's independence and territorial integrity, said it condemned massive and disproportionate attacks such as that carried out by Israel against Lebanon on 12 May. The United States, however, could not overlook the serious provocations from Lebanese territory that had preceded the attack, and it believed that the resolution just adopted was still unbalanced, in not having taken sufficient account of the repeated cease-fire violations from Lebanese territory that had resulted in numerous civilian casualties. Although its abstention in the vote should not be construed as equating those provocations with Israel's response, it believed that the adoption of a one-sided resolution would not be helpful to efforts to bring about a lasting settlement in accordance with the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967, all of whose provisions must be implemented without reservation.

Sierra Leone said it had great sympathy and respect for Lebanon and, although it had supported the Council's resolution of 12 May - requesting Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory - it did not believe that the current resolution, on which it had abstained, would facilitate the cause of peace. The stipulations of the resolution had already been expressed in previous Council resolutions. Moreover, peace in the Middle East would not be achieved by piecemeal measures. The important thing was to settle the fundamental issues permanently and as a whole.

Poland pointed out that Israel had chosen in the past to ignore the Security Council's resolutions and had disregarded the warnings contained in them. Such defiance should not be tolerated by the Council, and any effort to preserve the so-called balanced approach towards the aggressor and the victim of aggression could only lead to further aggravation of the situation. Poland associated itself with the resolution's condemnation of Israel's act, as well as with the solemn warning that if such attacks were to be repeated the Council would take effective measures as envisaged in the relevant provisions of the Charter. To Poland, that meant all the measures provided for in the Charter, including those under Chapter VII.

The representative of Israel said the resolution confined itself to Israel's defensive action and failed to mention equally the acts of aggression perpetrated against Israel from Lebanese territory. By that double standard, the resolution appeared to undermine further the Council's ability to deal with the Middle East situation equitably, realistically and constructively.

Lebanon said it would have liked the Council to adopt a stronger resolution and one adopted unanimously. The Council appeared reluctant to invoke Chapter VII of the Charter, thus allowing the aggressor to find sanctuary for his actions.

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(22 MAY-4 SEPTEMBER 1970)

On 22 May, Israel charged that a terrorist squad from Lebanon had ambushed a school bus transporting children from villages along the northern frontier of Israel, resulting in the death of seven children and three adults; 23 children were wounded.

On the same day, Lebanon charged that Israeli artillery had begun a massive shelling that morning of four villages in south-eastern Lebanon, killing 20 persons and wounding 40. It was unprecedented, Lebanon said, for a State to claim the right of reprisal not only against its victims - reduced to refugee-status and driven to resistance - but against the civilian population of the country in which those victims had taken refuge.

In a letter of 5 June, Lebanon further charged that since 22 May Israel had been deliberately and systematically continuing its aggression against Lebanon in violation of the Council's resolutions, the United Nations Charter, the Lebanon-Israel Armistice Agreement and international law. This was evidenced by daily crossings into Lebanese territory of Israeli tanks, half-tracks and armoured vehicles, by the shelling of civilian centres and military targets, and by other specific incidents. As a result, the letter stated, 50,000 persons had been forced to seek refuge in other Lebanese regions. Lebanon believed that Israel was following a calculated plan aimed possibly at occupying large Lebanese sectors on the Syrian-Lebanese border, under the false pretext that its forces were pursuing Palestinian commandos.

In a letter of 12 June, Israel expressed regret that Lebanon was trying to complicate the situation on the Israel-Lebanon border still further by describing it in a false and tendentious way. Israel's policy, the letter added, rested on: (a) respect for Lebanon's political independence and territorial integrity and non-intervention in its internal affairs; (b) negotiation and agreement on a final Israel-Lebanon peace settlement on the existing territorial basis; (c) scrupulous maintenance by both sides of the June 1967 cease-fire, on a basis of reciprocity which included the unequivocal responsibility of the Lebanese Government to prevent armed attacks from its territory against Israel; and (d) the right of self-defence against armed attack by all appropriate means.

On 4 September 1970, the representative of Lebanon transmitted to the President of the Security Council the text of a letter from the Lebanese Minister for Foreign Affairs. After charging that Israeli armed forces had committed 58 acts of aggression against Lebanon during the previous two weeks, the letter said that Israel's aggressive actions were increasingly assuming the dimensions of actual military hostilities and were directed not only against Lebanon and the other Arab countries but against those of the great powers which were trying to preserve world peace against a possible and probable extension of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The tragic experience which Lebanon had been undergoing on its frontiers was a test for the effectiveness of the Security Council's efforts to ensure that right should prevail.

CONSIDERATION BY SECURITY COUNCIL
(5 SEPTEMBER 1970)

On 5 September, the representative of Lebanon informed the President of the Security Council that two infantry companies of Israel's armed forces, under heavy air support, had penetrated inside Lebanese territory to a depth of seven kilometres, bombing civilian installations and opening roads for Israeli military use. In view of the extreme gravity of the situation, which was endangering the peace and security of Lebanon, he requested that an urgent meeting of the Security Council be convened.

The Security Council met on 5 September to consider the Lebanese request. The representatives of Lebanon and Israel were invited, at their request, to participate in the discussions without the right to vote.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Secretary-General informed the Council that he had received two cables from the Chief of Staff of UNTSO concerning the matter before the Council.

According to the first of these, the Chairman of the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission had stated that he had received from the Lebanese authorities a message to the effect that, on 4 September, Israeli aircraft had attacked the Lebanese region of Al Arkoub; at the same time, the area had been subjected to heavy artillery bombardment, causing material damage. When the bombardment ceased, an Israeli mixed infantry and armoured force had penetrated the region, destroying the road network in the area and blowing up several houses. As at 0930 hours GMT Israeli forces had not withdrawn from the territory. Lebanon had requested confirmation by United Nations Military Observers of the attack, and the immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. The UNTSO Chief of Staff had instructed the Chairman of the Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission to provide two United Nations Military Observers for on-the-spot inquiries. He also indicated that at 1500 hours GMT, on 5 September, the Assistant Israeli Defence Force Liaison Officer had not had any information on the alleged incident reported to the Mixed Armistice Commission by Lebanon. In the second message, received the same day, the Chief of Staff reported that the Assistant Liaison Officer had informed him at 1705 hours GMT on 5 September that all Israeli forces had withdrawn from Lebanese territory.

The Secretary-General then recalled that during the Security Council's meeting on 12 May 1970, he had stated that he had long sought to increase substantially the number of United Nations Observers on both sides in that area, but without success. For that reason, he could not provide the Council with detailed information about actions then taking place in the area.

The representative of Lebanon said that a few hours after he had transmitted to the President of the Security Council the letter of 4 September from Lebanon's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Israeli ground and air forces had launched an attack on Lebanese territory and had reached the village of Kfar Chouba, four kilometres inside Lebanon's borders. The Israeli forces had penetrated another seven kilometres from the borders, bombing civilian centres and populations. In the face of that aggression, the Lebanese Army had entered into action against the Israeli forces and, according to a message he had received, they were still engaging them on Lebanese territory. Israel's unwarranted attack on Lebanon had resulted in two civilians being killed and many others wounded, in addition to considerable material damage to civilian installations.

The Lebanese representative went on to say that the situation created by Israel's aggression constituted a test of the Security Council's ability to ensure the security and independence of small nations. In the past, when aggression had been committed against it, Lebanon had sought the guarantees that were promised by the Charter. It hoped that on the present occasion the Security Council would discharge its responsibility by calling for immediate and complete withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanon and by strongly condemning Israel's acts of aggression against Lebanon, in violation of the Charter and of past Council resolutions. After recalling that in its resolution of 19 May the Council had warned Israel that it would take effective measures in case of a repetition of armed attacks, the Lebanese spokesman demanded that measures be taken against Israel under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Israel's representative maintained that Lebanon had merely attempted to dramatize a minor patrolling incident which had become necessary because of the free hand given to the terrorists by the Government of Lebanon. The Security Council's resolution of 19 May, which was inequitable and one-sided, had given encouragement to the terrorist organizations. Since then, over 200 acts of aggression had been committed from Lebanese territory against Israel, resulting in 15 Israeli civilians and five military personnel being killed, and 38 civilians and 55 military personnel being wounded.

The terrorist activity in the area, the Israeli spokesman continued, corresponded to the proclaimed design of the terrorist leaders to sabotage the diplomatic efforts being made to reach a peaceful solution of the Middle East crisis. Members of the Security Council were aware of the Cairo agrement between Lebanon and the commandos which had provided the terrorists in Lebanon with a base for their activities against Israel. That agreement had declared that the armed struggle of the Palestinians was in Lebanon's interest; accordingly, Lebanon had undertaken to co-operate in the installation of supplies, and rest and aid posts for the commandos.

In view of the continuous attacks from Lebanese territory and the admitted helplessness of the Lebanese authorities to control their own territory, Israel, its representative said, had been compelled to exercise its right of self-defence. A small unit had been sent to carry out a "search-and-comb" mission in the foot-hills of Mount Hermon, and it had been evacuated from Lebanese territory after completing its mission. In that minor action, the Lebanese Army had not been directly involved. It was incumbent upon Lebanon to prevent the use of its territory by irregular and regular forces for aggression against another Member State of the United Nations.

The representative of Spain said that the statements of the Secretary-General and of Lebanon and Israel had established that an invasion against Lebanon had taken place and that Israel had not denied it. Recalling a similar situation in May, when Spain had submitted a draft resolution calling on Israel to withdraw its armed forces from Lebanon, he said that assurances had been given that the withdrawal had been completed even as the question was being discussed in the Council. However, he added, the facts later proved that the withdrawal had not taken place.

He went on to say that the Council could not remain inactive because of its past experience and therefore Spain was proposing a draft resolution by which the Security Council would demand "the complete and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory."

The Spanish representative asked the Council to vote urgently on his proposal, and France supported his request.

The representative of Israel said that since he had already informed the Council that Israeli forces had evacuated Lebanese territory, the draft resolution proposed by Spain was divorced from reality. It would be unfortunate if the Council should be stampeded into voting on and adopting a draft resolution that was marked not only by an absence of equity but also by a refusal to take cognizance of the plain facts of the situation.

Spain reiterated that the penetration by the armed forces of a State into the territory of another State was a violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter.13/ Therefore, the Council should proceed to a vote and call for the immediate and complete withdrawal of the Israeli forces which had penetrated into Lebanon.

The United States considered that the Spanish draft resolution was being presented in haste and before there had been an opportunity to ascertain through UNTSO what the precise situation was along the border. In view of the conflicting evidence, the United States would abstain on the Spanish draft, while making clear that this in no way detracted from continued and full United States support for the maintenance of the territorial integrity of Lebanon.

On the same day - 5 September - the draft resolution submitted by Spain was adopted by 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention (United States), as resolution 285(1970).


The United Kingdom said that, in spite of the conflict of evidence, it was appropriate to adopt the draft resolution. If the Israeli forces had indeed withdrawn, that fact would be welcomed; if they had not, then there was every reason for the Council to demand their immediate withdrawal. The United Kingdom nevertheless deplored all actions which were likely to impede the progress of Ambassador Jarring's mission and of the negotiations for an eventual settlement.

The representative of Lebanon thanked the members of the Council for their support and regretted that one member was unable to support the principle of withdrawal of foreign armed forces from the territory of independent and sovereign States, particularly when that member alleged that it had been working for peace in the Middle East.

The United States replied that its abstention was not related to the principle of withdrawal. If the Israeli forces had withdrawn, that would be welcome. If not, then it was the view of the United States that they should be withdrawn immediately.

In a report on 7 September, the Secretary-General, after referring to his statement before the Security Council on 5 September, said he had received a cable from the UNTSO Chief of Staff to the effect that the Lebanese authorities had informed UNTSO officially that Israeli forces had withdrawn from Lebanese territory as at 0700 hours GMT on 6 September 1970; in the absence of United Nations Observers in the area, there could be no direct observation of the circumstances of that withdrawal.

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(DECEMBER 1970)

On 28 December, Lebanon stated that a unit of Israeli forces, carried by two helicopters, had that day attacked the village of Yater in southern Lebanon, killing two civilians, wounding two others and destroying several houses. The letter added that, since its attack two years ago at the International Airport of Beirut, Israel had repeatedly attacked Lebanese territory with the aim of disrupting the peaceful life of the population and deliberately extending the area of conflict.

On 30 December, Israel replied that although Lebanon, under the cease-fire agreement, was committed to preventing the use of its territory for attacks against Israel, it was a matter of common knowledge that Lebanese territory - particularly villages in southern Lebanon - were being used as bases for terrorist aggression against Israel. On several occasions during 1970, Israel had drawn the Council's attention to those acts, which in recent weeks had increased; since 26 November 1970 18 such attacks by Lebanese-based saboteurs had taken place. It was against one of those bases that Israeli defensive action had been taken on the night of 27 December. As had been indicated previously to the Security Council and to Lebanon, Israel's policy regarding Lebanon continued to be based on scrupulous maintenance by both sides of the cease-fire, including the responsibility of Lebanon to prevent armed attacks from its territory against Israel.

COMPLAINTS BY ISRAEL AND SYRIA

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(2 JANUARY-31 DECEMBER 1970)

From time to time during 1970, the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council reports on incidents in the Israel-Syria cease-fire sector, based on information received from the Chief of Staff of UNTSO. During January and February 1970, the Secretary-General circulated supplemental information from the UNTSO Chief of Staff which indicated intensification of firing incidents and, in particular, increased aerial activity. There were also reports of occasional firing close to United Nations observation posts and minor damage to United Nations installations.

On 2 February 1970, Israel charged that during January more than 60 armed attacks had been carried out by Syrian forces in violation of the cease-fire; these attacks - which employed mortars, rockets, artillery and bazookas - were continuing, as were mining raids and over-flights.

In a letter of 11 February. Israel said that Syria's Minister of the Interior and chief representative to the Rabat (Morocco) Conference had told the Conference on 19 December 1969 that "there was no alternative to armed struggle" and that "all Arab States participating in the Conference should place all their economic, political and military capabilities in the service of that objective." That policy, Israel added, was translated into action through the continued initiation by Syrian regular forces of armed attacks against Israel and through the Syrian Government's support for and participation in the terrorist warfare pursued by irregular forces.

On 9 February, Syria drew attention to the continuation and intensification of aggression by Israeli regular armed forces against it and added that, contrary to Israeli allegations, Israeli forces had, since January, begun a campaign of terror against Syria's civilian population and its cities. Furthermore, since June 1967, Israel had effectively annexed and settled the occupied Syrian territories, and Israeli leaders had made no secret of their intentions in that regard.

During the period from 1 March to 30 May, the Secretary-General continued to circulate supplemental information containing reports received from the UNTSO Chief of Staff on incidents in the Israel-Syria sector. The reports showed that incidents involving the use of artillery, tank, mortar and rocket fire were taking place on an almost daily basis and that aerial activity had increased.

On 16 March, Israel charged that Syrian aggression was continuing and that attacks by regular and irregular forces from Syrian territory had intensified in recent days, causing loss of life and damage. Since the beginning of 1970, the letter added, there had been 148 Syrian attacks; in the preceding four days, such attacks had resulted in the death of three Israeli soldiers and the wounding of 120.

On 29 March, Israel further charged that on 23 March Syrian armed forces had crossed the cease-fire line and clashed with Israeli forces. Eight of the attackers had been killed, and their bodies had been returned to Syria through the International Red Cross. The letter also stated that on 27 March the Syrian regular army had carried out another attack on an Israeli military position, during which one Israeli soldier had been killed and another wounded.

On 3 April, Syria charged that on the previous day Israeli air force and army units had attacked Syria and that Syrian air force and ground army units had had to take action in self-defence. As a result of that attack, 16 Syrian soldiers had been killed and 37 others wounded. Furthermore, the letter added, Israeli forces had also attacked Syrian towns and villages, killing a number of civilians - including women and children - and destroying a number of houses. The letter charged that Israel's violations of the cease-fire from 1 January until 18 March totalled 1,045.
On 6 April, Israel replied that its defence action on 2 April was aimed at Syrian military targets and that its objective was to thwart Syria's aggressive actions, which had intensified in recent weeks, as had been reported in its letters of 11 February and 16 and 29 March.

On 5 June, Syria, referring to its letter of 9 February regarding the annexation by Israel of occupied Syrian territory, stated that, according to a report by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on 1 June, Israel had approved a $48 million five-year plan to expand Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights. That new manifestation of illegal military occupation by Israel, the letter added, violated Security Council resolutions, the Charter, the Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and all of the General Assembly's humanitarian resolutions. The situation again was attributed to the support Israel continued to receive from the United States Government.

During the month of June, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO reported on numerous firing incidents in the Israel-Syria sector. On 25 and 26 June, he reported intensification of fire exchanges along the cease-fire line, involving the use of heavy and light weapons. In supplemental information issued the following day, he reported that the Officer-in-Charge of the Tiberias Control Centre had informed him that Israeli tanks, supported by armoured personnel carriers, had crossed the cease-fire line and had been seen at a distance of up to five kilometres inside Syrian territory. At the same time, heavy exchanges of fire had been observed, accompanied by raids carried out by Israeli aircraft along the cease-fire line.

The report added that Israeli forces had occupied an observation post that day at 1230 hours GMT and had asked the United Nations Military Observers to cease radio transmissions. Protests had been made to the Israeli authorities. Later that day, Israeli forces had withdrawn from the area of the post. The report further indicated that as a result of the intense exchange of firing, several United Nations installations, as well as equipment, had been damaged.

In the same report, the Chief of Staff said there had been further intensification of aerial activity in the Israel-Syria sector, involving the flight of Israeli jet aircraft over Syrian lines and attacks on Syrian positions and troops. During these attacks, the Observers reported that anti-aircraft fire from the Syrian forces had been heard. The report added that Israeli authorities had informed the UNTSO Chief of Staff that, during those incidents, 10 Israeli soldiers had been killed and 32 wounded, in addition to one aircraft lost. All cease-fire arrangements proposed by the United Nations Military Observers, although accepted by the parties on several occasions, had not been effective.

In further supplemental information issued by the Secretary-General from the beginning of July until the end of December 1970, the UNTSO Chief of Staff indicated that sporadic firing incidents had continued to take place almost daily, and that, in most of the cases, the firing had been initiated by Israeli forces. During the same period, light aerial activity was reported and, on some occasions, United Nations installations and equipment had received slight damage as a result of the firing.







DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

COMPLAINTS BY ISRAEL AND JORDAN

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(JANUARY-AUGUST 1970)

S/9589. Letter of 2 January 1970 from Jordan.

S/9592. Letter of 5 January 1970 from Israel.

S/9596. Letter of 9 January 1970 from Jordan.

S/9600. Letter of 13 January 1970 from Israel.

S/9607 (A/7940), S/9608, S/9610. Letters of 16, 19 and 21 January 1970 from Jordan.

S/9613. Letter of 22 January 1970 from Israel.

S/9618 (A/7944). Letter of 27 January 1970 from Jordan.

S/9623 (A/7945). Letter of 29 January 1970 from Israel.

S/9761, S/9764, S/9765. Letters of 21 and 24 April 1970 from Jordan.

S/9766 (A/7974), S/9767 and Corr.1. Letters of 26 April 1970 from Israel.

S/9816. Letter of 1 June 1970 from Jordan.

S/9817, S/9818 and Corr.1. Letters of 1 and 3 June 1970 from Israel.

S/9819, S/9820. Letters of 3 June 1970 from Jordan.

S/9821. Letter of 3 June 1970 from Israel.

S/9852, S/9864, S/9869. Letters of 30 June and 13 and 16 July 1970 from Jordan.

S/9879. Letter of 20 July 1970 from Israel.

S/9894, S/9912. Letters of 29 July and 18 August 1970 from Jordan.

S/9916. Letter of 24 August 1970 from Israel.

S/9921. Letter of 28 August 1970 from Jordan.

COMPLAINTS BY ISRAEL AND THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(JANUARY-AUGUST 1970)

S/7930/Add.481, 483-487, 489, 490, 493-498, 500, 502, 504, 506, 508, 510, 512-516, 518, 520, 522, 523, 525, 526. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2, 3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-24 and 26-31 January 1970.

S/7930/Add.528, 530, 532, 534, 536, 537 and Corr.1, 538-542, 544, 546, 548, 550, 552, 554, 555, 557, 559-564, 566, 567, 569. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2-7, 9-21 and 23-28 February 1970.

S/7930/Add.570, 572, 573, 575, 577, 579, 581 and Corr.1, 583, 585, 587, 589, 591, 593, 595, 597 598, 600, 602, 604-606, 608, 610, 611, 613, 615, 617, 619, 621, 622, 624. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2-7, 9-14, 16-21, 23-28, 30 and 31 March 1970.

S/7930/Add.626, 628, 630, 632, 634, 636-638, 640, 642-646, 648, 650, 652, 654, 656, 657, 659, 661, 663, 665, 668, 670, 671, 674, 676, 678. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General dated 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-25 and 27-30 April 1970.

S/7930/Add.680, 682, 684, 686, 688, 690, 692, 694, 696, 698, 699, 701, 703, 705, 707, 709, 711, 713, 715, 717, 719, 721, 723, 726, 728, 730, 732, 734 and Corr.1, 2, 735, 737, 739, 741. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-23 and 25-30 May 1970.

S/7930/Add.743, 745, 747, 749, 752, 754, 755, 757, 759, 760, 762, 764, 766, 768, 770, 772, 774, 776, 778, 780, 782, 784, 786, 788, 790, 792, 794, 798, 800, 801, 803, 805, 807. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, 22-27, 29 and 30 June 1970.

S/7930/Add.809, 811, 813, 815, 817, 819, 821, 823, 825, 827, 829, 831, 833, 835, 837, 839, 840, 842, 844, 846, 848, 850, 852, 854, 856, 858, 860, 862 864, 866, 868, 870. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-25 and 27-31 July 1970.

S/7930/Add.872, 874, 875, 877, 879, 881, 883, 885, 887, 893, 907. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1, 3-8, 13 and 25 August 1970.

S/7930/Add.915, 938. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1 and 23 September 1970.

S/9626. Letter of 26 January 1970 from United Arab Republic.

S/9635. Letter of 2 February 1970 from Israel.

S/9656 (A/7953). Letter of 20 February 1970 from United Arab Republic

S/9657. Letter of 20 February 1970 from USSR.

S/9658 (A/7954), S/9669, S/9671 (A/7957). Letters of 21 and 27 February 1970 from Israel.

S/9744 (A/7969). Letter of 8 April 1970 from United Arab Republic.

S/9745 (A/7970), S/9752/Rev.1 (A/7971/Rev.1). Letters of 9 and 14 April 1970 from Israel.

S/9755 (A/7972). Letter of 15 April 1970 from United Arab Republic.
S/9756. Letter of 15 April 1970 from USSR.

S/9757. Letter of 17 April 1970 from Israel.

S/9775 (A/7976), S/9778 (A/7977). Letters of 1 and 4 May 1970 from United Arab Republic.

S/9782 (A/7978). Letter of 5 May 1970 from Israel.

S/9825. Note of 8 June 1970 by Secretary-General.

S/9826. Letter of 7 June 1970 from Chile.

S/9840. Letter of 16 June 1970 from Sweden.

S/9845. Letter of 15 June 1970 from Finland.

S/9855. Letter of 29 June 1970 from Austria.

S/9857. Letter of 15 June 1970 from Ireland.

S/9902. Note by Secretary-General, dated 7 August 1970, on Jarring mission, for information of Security Council.

S/9906. Letter of 12 August 1970 from Argentina.


COMPLAINTS BY ISRAEL AND LEBANON

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(JANUARY-MAY 1970)

S/9590. Letter of 3 January 1970 from Lebanon.

S/9593. Letter of 5 January 1970 from Israel.

S/9597, S/9599. Letters of 9 and 12 January 1970 from Lebanon.

S/9604. Letter of 15 January 1970 from Israel.

S/9617. Letter of 26 January 1970 from Lebanon.

S/9621, S/9670. Letters of 29 January and 27 February 1970 from Israel.

S/9672. Letter of 28 February 1970 from Lebanon.

S/9678. Letter of 4 March 1970 from Israel.

S/9683. Letter of 7 March 1970 from Lebanon.

S/9691. Letter of 10 March 1970 from Israel.

S/9711, S/9713 (A/7964). Letters of 17 and 18 March 1970 from Lebanon.

S/9722 (A/7966), S/9790. Letters of 25 March and 10 May 1970 from Israel.

CONSIDERATION BY SECURITY COUNCIL
(12-19 MAY 1970)

SECURITY COUNCIL, meetings 1537-1542.

S/9794. Letter of 12 May 1970 from Lebanon (request to convene Council).

S/9795. Letter of 12 May 1970 from Israel (request to convene Council).

S/9796-S/9799. Letters of 12 May 1970 from Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Morocco (requests to participate in Council's discussions).

S/9800. Spain: draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 279(1970), as proposed by Spain, S/9800, adopted unanimously by Council on 12 May 1970, meeting 1537.

The Security Council

Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.

S/9801. Letter of 13 May 1970 from Israel.

S/9807. Zambia: draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 280(1970), as proposed by Zambia, S/9807, adopted by Council on 19 May 1970, meeting 1542, by 11 votes to 0, with 4 abstentions (Colombia, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, United States).

The Security Council,

Having considered the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/1537,

Having noted the contents of the letters of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon and the Permanent Representative of Israel,

Having heard the statements of the representatives of Lebanon and Israel,

Gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation resulting from violations of resolutions of the Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 262(1968) of 31 December 1968 and 270(1969) of 26 August 1969,

Convinced that the Israeli military attack against Lebanon was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned in nature,

Recalling its resolution 279(1970) of 12 May 1970 demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory,

1. Deplores the failure of Israel to abide by resolutions 262(1968) and 270(1969);

2. Condemns Israel for its premeditated military action in violation of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations;

3. Declares that such armed attacks can no longer be tolerated and repeats its solemn warning to Israel that if they were to be repeated the Security Council would, in accordance with resolution 262(1968) and the present resolution, consider taking adequate and effective steps or measures in accordance with the relevant Articles of the Charter to implement its resolutions;

4. Deplores the loss of life and damage to property inflicted as a result of violations of resolutions of the Security Council.



COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(22 MAY-4 SEPTEMBER 1970)

S/9810. Letter of 22 May 1970 from Israel.

S/9811 (A/7981), S/9822. Letters of 22 May and 5 June 1970 from Lebanon.

S/9834. Letter of 12 June 1970 from Israel.

S/9924. Letter of 4 September 1970 from Lebanon.

CONSIDERATION BY SECURITY COUNCIL
(5 SEPTEMBER 1970)

SECURITY COUNCIL, meeting 1551.

S/9925. Letter of 5 September 1970 from Lebanon (request to convene Council).

S/9926, S/9927. Letters of 5 September 1970 from Lebanon and Israel (requests to participate in Council's discussions).

S/9928. Spain: draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 285 (1970), as proposed by Spain, S/9928, adopted by Council on 5 September 1970, meeting 1551, by 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention (United States).

The Security Council,

Demands the complete and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.

S/9929. Report by Secretary-General dated 7 September 1970.

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(DECEMBER 1970)

S/10063. Letter of 28 December 1970 from Lebanon.

S/10067. Letter of 30 December 1970 from Israel.


COMPLAINTS BY ISRAEL AND SYRIA

COMMUNICATIONS TO SECURITY COUNCIL
(2 JANUARY-31 DECEMBER 1970)

S/7930/Add.482, 488, 491, 492, 499, 501, 503, 505, 507, 509, 511, 517, 519, 521, 524, 527. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2, 6, 8, 9, 14-17, 19, 20, 26, 27, 29 and 31 January 1970.

S/7930/Add.529, 531, 533, 535, 543, 545, 547, 549, 551, 553, 556, 558, 565, 568. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2-4, 11-16, 18, 19, 25 and 27 February 1970.

S/7930/Add.571, 574, 576, 578, 580, 582, 584, 586, 588, 590, 592, 594, 596, 599, 601, 603, 607, 609, 612, 614, 616, 618, 620, 623, 625. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2-7, 9-14, 16-18, 21, 23-28, 30 and 31 March 1970.

S/7930/Add.627, 629, 631, 633, 635, 639, 641, 647, 649, 651, 653, 655, 658, 660, 662, 664, 666, 667, 669, 672, 673, 675, 677, 679. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 14-18, 20-25 and 27-30 April 1970.

S/7930/Add.681, 683, 685, 687, 689, 691, 693, 695, 697, 700, 702, 704, 706, 708, 710, 712, 714, 716, 718, 720, 722, 724, 725, 727, 729, 731, 733, 736, 738, 740, 742. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-23 and 25-30 May 1970.

S/7930/Add.744, 746, 748, 750, 751, 753, 756, 758, 761, 763, 765, 767, 769, 771, 773, 775, 777, 779, 781, 783, 785, 787, 789, 791, 793, 795, 796 and Corr.1, 797, 799, 802, 804, 806, 808. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-6, 8-13, 15-20, 22-27, 29 and 30 June 1970.

S/7930/Add.810, 812, 814, 816, 818, 820, 822, 824, 826, 828, 830, 832, 834, 836, 838, 841, 843, 845, 847, 849, 851, 853, 855, 857, 859, 861, 863, 865, 867, 869, 871. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-4, 6-10, 13-18, 20-25 and 27-31 July 1970.

S/7930/Add.873, 876, 878, 880, 882, 884, 886, 888-892, 894-906, 908-913. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-22, 24-29 and 31 August 1970.

S/7930/Add.914, 916-929, 930 and Corr.1, 931-937, 939-945. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, 21-26 and 28-30 September 1970.

S/7930/Add.946-963, 964 and Corr.1, 965-973. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-17, 19-24, 26, 27 and 29-31 October 1970.

S/7930/Add.974-1001. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 2-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16-21, 23-28 and 30 November 1970.

S/7930/Add.1002-1030. Supplemental information received by Secretary-General, dated 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14, 15, 17-19, 21-24, 26 and 28-31 December 1970.

S/9634. Letter of 2 February 1970 from Israel.

S/9643 (A/7949). Letter of 9 February 1970 from Syria.

S/9646 (A/7950). Letter of 11 February 1970 from Israel.

S/9649. Letter of 13 February 1970 from Syria.

S/9706, S/9727 and Corr.1. Letters of 16 and 29 March 1970 from Israel.

S/9736. Letter of 3 April 1970 from Syria.

S/9739. Letter of 6 April 1970 from Israel.

S/9823 (A/7983). Letter of 5 June 1970 from Syria.






TREATMENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS
IN ISRAELI-OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
AND RELATED MATTERS

COMMUNICATIONS

During 1970, the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General received a number of communications concerning the treatment of the civilian population in territories under Israel's occupation. 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, in its replies, rejected the charges by the Arab States.

On 23 January 1970, Syria charged that two Syrian pilots had been ill-treated while imprisoned in Israel. Syria complained that the ill-treatment, which was in violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, had taken place between visits by the representatives of the International Red Cross to territories occupied by Israel. Syria further charged that Israel had refused to permit a representative of the Secretary-General to visit the occupied areas in pursuance of relevant Security Council resolutions. It had also refused to allow a visit by the Special Working Group of Experts established on 4 March 1969 by the Commission on Human Rights to investigate violations of human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories or by the three-member Committee established by the General Assembly on 19 December 1968. (See below, pp. 246-47.)

Israel, in its reply on 30 January, denied the charges of ill-treatment and said that the conditions of detention of the two Syrian pilots were in full accord with the provisions of the above-mentioned Geneva Convention. Syria's charges were an attempt to divert attention from the situation created by membership in the Security Council of a Government which persisted in violating provisions of the United Nations Charter. With regard to visits to Israeli-held territories by a representative of the Secretary-General, the Special Working Group of Experts or the three-member Committee, Israel stated it had no objection to visits by such representatives provided they also investigated the question of oppression of Jews by Arab regimes.

On 9 June, Israel noted a statement by the Foreign Minister of Somalia to the effect that his country considered itself at war with Israel and pointed out that Somalia was one of the three members of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, established by the General Assembly in December 1968.

Another member of that Committee, Israel noted further, was Yugoslavia, which had broken relations with Israel and openly identified itself with the political position of the Arab States. It also drew attention to a declaration of 14 June by the Prime Minister of Ceylon - the third member of the Committee - announcing that diplomatic and other relations with Israel would be suspended until the settlement of the conflict between Israel and the Arab countries. Following that declaration, the Foreign Minister of Israel had stated that Ceylon's decision encouraged all the extremist factors which were rendering peace in the Middle East more distant. Israel asserted that the three-member Committee, which was composed of three States inimical to Israel, was functioning as a tool of Arab propaganda and that its activities were devoid of all moral or legal validity.

By a note dated 27 July, the President of the Security Council drew the attention of Council members to a resolution adopted on 23 March 1970 by the Commission on Human Rights on the question of human rights in territories occupied as a result of hostilities in the Middle East, including the report of the Special Working Group of Experts. The Commission on Human Rights had requested the Secretary-General to bring to the attention of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council the text of that resolution and the report of the Special Working Group of Experts established to investigate allegations concerning Israel's violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War in the occupied territories.

In letters of 16 and 23 July, and 12 and 27 August, Jordan charged that Israel, in violation of General Assembly resolutions and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, had taken measures forcibly to expel Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories. Jordan submitted with each letter a list of the names, ages and the villages or towns of those expelled.

On 3 August, Jordan charged that Israel had opened artillery fire, aimed at the Coptic Convent and other neighbouring convents in the occupied area of Jericho, which had resulted in the destruction of parts of the Convent and damage to other properties. Jordan added that Israeli authorities had been forcing Moslem worshippers to evacuate the Ibrahimi Mosque in Al Khalil (Hebron) to make room for Jewish fanatics and Israeli soldiers. In addition, and as part of its policy to change the character of the occupied area, Israeli authorities had taken over two Islamic shrines - the Mosque of Rachael's Tomb on the Jerusalem-Al Khalil road and Joseph's Shrine in Nablus.

On 17 August, Israel replied that, since 1968, Christian monasteries on the Jordan River in the area of the Baptism Site, on the Israeli side of the cease-fire line, had been harassed by firing from saboteurs. The Coptic Convent was the target of an attack on 24 May 1969 and was later damaged by explosive charges laid by saboteurs from Jordan on 4 August and 11 December 1969.

On 16 September, representatives of 14 Arab States stated in a letter to the Secretary-General that reports in the world press had indicated that, during the previous few days, hundreds of men and women had been arbitrarily arrested in the Israeli-occupied Arab territories; that these innocent civilians were being held by Israel as hostages; and that the entire population of the occupied territories had been threatened with further measures of greater repressiveness.

They pointed out that in view of the persistent refusal of the Israeli authorities to permit international fact-finding missions to visit the occupied territories in fulfilment of their mandate under various United Nations resolutions, press reports remained a principal means by which the international community could be informed about the measures that had been systematically pursued by Israel since the beginning of the occupation.

The letter added that the arbitrary arrest and detention of civilian inhabitants of occupied territories in reprisal for actions they had not personally committed, and the taking of hostages under any pretext, were specifically and unequivocally outlawed by the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Israel's actions, said the letter, constituted a grave escalation of Israel's methodical violations of the Geneva Convention and the relevant United Nations resolutions.
On 23 September, in a letter to the Secretary-General, Israel rejected the charges of the Arab States and said that, on 6 and 9 September, five attempts at hijacking civil passenger aircraft on regular scheduled flights had been made by members of an Arab terrorist organization operating in and from the Arab countries bordering on Israel. One had been foiled. The four planes successfully hijacked had subsequently been blown up - one at Cairo (United Arab Republic), the other three a week later at Zerka (Jordan). Their passengers and crews were held as hostages under barbaric conditions; some had since been released but over 50 remained captive, apparently because most of them were Jews.

The Israeli letter then recalled that the Security Council had on 9 September expressed its grave concern "at the threat to innocent civilian lives from the hijacking of aircraft" and had appealed for the immediate release of all passengers and crews without exception. (See below, pp. 263-64.)

Israel, for its part, had had no choice but to take precautionary measures against the threat of further terror activity, the letter continued. On 12 September, Israeli security authorities had temporarily taken in for questioning 450 persons suspected of being associated with the terror organizations, particularly the one that openly claimed credit for the hijackings. Seventy-five of these had been released within two days; the rest were freed by 18 September, after their interrogation had been completed.

On 15 October, the representative of Syria transmitted to the Secretary-General the text of an article published on 11 October in The Sunday Times of London which stated that a report released by the International Committee of the Red Cross had accused Israel of blowing up Arab towns, villages, camps and houses in the occupied territories in defiance of the 1949 Geneva Convention - acts which the International Committee had protested.

DECISION BY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

During 1970, the reports of two groups concerned with aspects of the question of the violation of human rights in the territories occupied as a result of hostilities in the Middle East were considered variously by the Commission on Human Rights, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly.

The two groups were: the Special Working Group of Experts established by the Human Rights Commission in March 196914/ to investigate allegations concerning Israel's violations of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War in territories militarily occupied by Israel; and the three-member Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, established by the General Assembly on 19 December 1968.15/

On 23 March 1970, the Human Rights Commission adopted a resolution based on the recommendations and conclusions contained in the report of the Special Working Group of Experts.

Among other things, the Commission noted with dismay Israel's refusal to co-operate with the Special Working Group and endorsed the Group's conclusions regarding the applicability of the fourth (1949) Geneva Convention to all the occupied areas, including occupied Jerusalem, and the existence of violations of that Convention in the Israeli-occupied territories.

The Commission condemned Israel's refusal to apply the Convention, and its violations thereof, in particular: (a) the total or partial destruction of villages and cities in the occupied territories; (b) the establishment of Israeli settlements in the militarily occupied Arab territories; (c) the unlawful deportation and expulsion of civilians; (d) coercive acts to compel the civilian population under its military occupation to collaborate with the occupying power against their will; (e) the abrogation of the national laws in the occupied territories contrary to the Convention and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly; and (f) all policies and measures of collective punishment.

The Commission deplored all policies and actions aiming at the deportation of the Palestinian refugees from the occupied Gaza Strip and called on Israel to desist from such deportation.

The Commission also expressed concern over other specific violations of the 1949 Geneva Convention, such as: the use of means of coercion to extract information; the ill-treatment and killing of civilians without provocation; detention by administrative order, without any guarantee concerning the length of detention and fair trial; matters concerning counsel; and destruction and usurpation of movable and unmovable property.

Next, the Commission called on Israel once more strictly to observe the Geneva Convention in the occupied territories and to refrain from certain measures in contravention of it. The Special Working Group was asked to continue to investigate and report Israeli violations of the Convention and to examine in particular: (a) the evidence concerning the cases of torture taking place in Israeli prisons against prisoners in the occupied territories; (b) other cases of violations of the Convention in the occupied territories which it had not yet investigated; and (c) the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories in contravention of the Convention.

The Commission called on Israel to receive the Special Working Group, to co-operate with it and to facilitate its task. The Commission also decided to include the question as a separate item of priority at its 1971 session. The Secretary-General was asked to give the widest publicity to the entire report of the Special Working Group and to report to the Commission in 1971 on that publicity. He was also asked to bring the report to the attention of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council.

DECISION BY ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

On 27 May 1970, the Economic and Social Council decided, among other things, that the investigation decided upon by the Human Rights Commission should be undertaken in 1970, bearing in mind the need to effect maximum savings when allocating funds. The Council took this action in adopting resolution 1505 (XLVIII), by 12 votes to 0, with 14 abstentions (See text of resolution in DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below. )

DECISION BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Later in 1970, at its twenty-fifth session, the General Assembly considered the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, established by the Assembly in 1968 and further guided by Assembly resolution 2546(XXIV) of 11 December 1969.16/

The Special Committee concluded, among other things, that Israel was pursuing policies and practices in the occupied territories which were in violation of the human rights of the population of these territories, and that in this case the fundamental violation of human rights lay in the very fact of occupation. The Committee found it almost impossible to separate the specific policies and practices applied to individuals, groups or areas from the broad context of the occupation itself. The Committee believed that, while the occupation lasted, Israel - as the occupying power - had both a legal and a moral obligation to implement the third and fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 (the third Convention having to do with the treatment of prisoners of war, the fourth, with the protection of civilian persons in time of war).

Specifically, the Special Committee proposed that Israel be asked by the General Assembly:

(a) to permit the unconditional return to their homes of all persons who had fled the occupied territories, or who were deported or expelled therefrom;
(b) to cease immediately and to prevent all policies and practices of collective punishment, such as the destruction of property, imposition of excessively harsh curfews and mass arrests;

(c) to make full compensation for property destroyed, and to effect restitution of property confiscated in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention;

(d) to cease immediately and to prevent the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners of war and persons imprisoned or detained under the laws and regulations relating to the occupation and to apply to such persons the provisions of the third and fourth Geneva Conventions and of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners;

(e) to bring to an end the indefinite and prolonged detention without trial of all persons, including those detained under security regulations and those under administrative detention, by releasing them or affording them a fair trial in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions;

(f) to reform the procedures and conditions of administrative detention in accordance with those Conventions;

(g) to refrain from attempts at compelling the inhabitants of the occupied territories to collaborate with the occupation authorities;

(h) to discontinue the policy of establishing Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, and to withdraw all Israeli settlers from settlements already established;

(i) to eliminate and refrain from the creation of social and economic conditions resulting in the departure of the inhabitants of the occupied territories from their established homes and communities;

(j) to refrain from the harassment and arbitrary deportation of leaders and intellectuals from among the inhabitants of the occupied territories;

(k) to rescind Israeli legislation in force in the occupied territories which was repugnant to provisions of the third and fourth Geneva Conventions;

(l) to repeal all measures taken to alter the status of occupied Jerusalem and to restore it to the status subsisting before the outbreak of hostilities;

(m) to restore the judicial system in the occupied territories to the status it enjoyed before the occupation and in particular to return the Court of Appeals of Jerusalem to its seat in Jerusalem;

(n) to investigate all the allegations brought to the notice of the Special Committee concerning ill-treatment of civilians and detainees, particularly those detained under security regulations, access to whom was denied to officials of the International Red Cross, and those purportedly held under administrative detention, and to take appropriate remedial measures.

The Special Committee then proposed, as a temporary practical measure, that the General Assembly recommend to the States whose territory was occupied by Israel that they 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. In the special circumstances prevailing in the occupied territories, where there was a large population not yet given the opportunity of exercising its rights of self-determination, it was necessary, in the Special Committee's view, to make suitable arrangements for the proper representation of their interests.

The Special Committee also proposed that a neutral State or organization, nominated by Israel, be associated in the arrangement, and that Israel be called upon to accept such an arrangement and to provide all the facilities necessary for its effective functioning consistent with the provisions of the third and fourth Geneva Conventions.

The Special Committee went on to suggest that the State or States or international organization duly nominated under this arrangement 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, and in particular to investigate and determine the facts in the case of allegations of the 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.

The Special Committee felt that until such an arrangement was made it should continue its work.

On 15 December 1970, the General Assembly among other things noted with regret that the provisions of relevant resolutions of United Nations bodies had not been implemented by the Israeli authorities, and it expressed grave concern for the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel.

The Assembly expressed appreciation to the Special Committee and its members for its efforts in performing the task assigned to it and called on Israel immediately to implement the Special Committee's recommendations and to comply with its obligations under the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the relevant resolutions adopted by the various international organizations.

The Assembly then asked the Special Committee, pending the early termination of the 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 human rights of the population of the occupied territories. Israel was urged to receive the Special Committee, to co-operate with it and facilitate its work.


The Assembly asked the Special Committee to report to the Secretary-General as soon as possible and whenever the need arose thereafter; and it asked the Secretary-General to provide the Special Committee with all the necessary facilities for the continued performance of its tasks.

Finally, the Assembly decided to include in the provisional agenda of its twenty-sixth (1971) session an item on the report (or reports) of the Special Committee.

The Assembly took these decisions in adopting resolution 2727(XXV) - by a roll-call vote of 52 to 20, with 43 abstentions - on the recommendation of its Special Political Committee, to which the item had been referred. The Special Political Committee had approved the text on 11 December 1970 by a roll-call vote of 49 to 14, with 37 abstentions, on the basis of a proposal sponsored eventually by Afghanistan, Guinea, Indonesia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Pakistan and Senegal.

(For text of resolution 2727(XXV) and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below. See also pp. 523-26.)

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

COMMUNICATIONS

S/9614 (A/7942). Letter of 23 January 1970 from Syria.

S/9629 (A/7946). Letter of 30 January 1970 from Israel.

S/9639 (A/7947). Letter of 5 February from Syria.

S/9642 (A/7948). Letter of 9 February 1970 from Israel.

S/9774 (A/7975). Letter of 30 April 1970 from Kuwait.

S/9809 (A/7980). Letter of 21 May 1970 from Israel.

S/9813. Letter of 28 May 1970 from Jordan.

S/9832 (A/7984), S/9833 (A/7985), S/9841 (A/7986). Letters of 9 and 18 June 1970 from Israel.

S/9868 (A/7988), S/9885 (A/7997). Letters of 16 and 23 July 1970 from Jordan.

S/9888. Note dated 27 July 1970 by President of Security Council.

S/9897, S/9904 (A/8039). Letters of 3 and 12 August 1970 from Jordan.

S/9913. Letter of 17 August 1970 from Israel.

S/9919 (A/8051). Letter of 27 August 1970 from Jordan.

S/9941 (A/8063). Letter of 16 September 1970 from Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Republic and Yemen.

S/9948 (A/8075). Letter of 23 September 1970 from Israel.

S/9963 (A/8123). Letter of 15 October 1970 from Syria.


DECISIONS BY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
AND ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL-48TH SESSION

Social Committee, meetings 636-639, 644.

Plenary Meeting 1693.

E/4816. Report of Commission on Human Rights on its 26th session, 21 February-27 March 1970, Chapters XI and XXIII (resolution 10(XXVI)).

E/4816/Add.1. Financial implications of resolutions adopted by Commission at its 26th session.

E/AC.7/L.575. India, Pakistan, Sudan: draft resolution, approved by Social Committee on 22 May 1970, meeting 644, by 12 votes to 0, with 11 abstentions.

E/4868 and Corr.1, 2. Report of Social Committee, draft resolution VII.

RESOLUTION 1505(XLVIII), as recommended by Social Committee, E/4868, adopted by Council on 27 May 1970, meeting 1693, by 12 votes to 0, with 14 abstentions.

The Economic and Social Council,

Having noted the statement of financial implications prepared by the Secretary-General on the decisions taken by the Commission on Human Rights at its twenty-sixth session,

1. Decides that the activities arising out of the decisions taken by the Commission on Human Rights at its twenty-sixth session in resolutions 8(XXVI) and 10(XXVI) should be undertaken in 1970 in conformity with the relevant decisions of the Commission, bearing in mind the necessity to effect the maximum savings when allocating funds;

2. Authorizes the Secretary-General to inform the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions that the Council, taking into account the provisions of paragraph 1 above, considers the relevant programmes and expenditures to be of an urgent nature.


DECISION BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

GENERAL ASSEMBLY-25TH SESSION

General Committee, meetings 188, 190.

Special Political Committee, meetings 727, 744-751.

Fifth Committee, meeting 1419.

Plenary Meetings 1909, 1931.

A/7929. Report of Economic and Social Council. Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of Population of Occupied Territories. Note by Secretary-General.

A/7942 (S/9614). Letter of 23 January 1970 from Syria.

A/7946 (S/9629). Letter of 30 January 1970 from Israel.

A/7947 (S/9639). Letter of 5 February 1970 from Syria.

A/7948 (S/9642). Letter of 9 February 1970 from Israel.

A/7975 (S/9774). Letter of 30 April 1970 from Kuwait.

A/7980 (S/9809). Letter of 21 May 1970 from Israel.

A/7984 (S/9832), A/7985 (S/9833), A/7986 (S/9811). Letters of 9 and 18 June 1970 from Israel.

A/7988 (S/9868), A/7997 (S/9885). Letters of 16 and 23 July 1970 from Jordan.

A/8001. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1969-15 June 1970, Part Three, Chapter I A 7.

A/8003 and Corr.1. Report of Economic and Social Council, 9 August 1969-31 July 1970, Chapter IX C.

A/8039 (S/9904). Letter of 12 August 1970 from Jordan.

A/8051 (S/9919). Letter of 27 August 1970 from Jordan.

A/8063 (S/9941). Letter of 16 September 1970 from Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Republic and Yemen.

A/8075 (S/9948). Letter of 23 September 1970 from Israel.

A/8089. Report of Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting Human Rights of Population of Occupied Territories. Note by Secretary-General (transmitting report).

A/8093. Letter of 11 November 1970 from Iraq (request for inclusion in agenda of item entitled: "Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories").

A/8123 (S/9963). Letter of 15 October 1970 from Syria. Letter of 9 February 1970 from Syria.

A/8164. Letter of 13 November 1970 from Israel.

A/8100/Add.2 Adoption of agenda of 25th regular session and allocation of items. Third report of General Committee.

A/SPC/137/Add.1. Letter of 18 November 1970 from President of General Assembly to Chairman of Special Political Committee.

A/SPC/142. Letter of 4 December 1970 from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (request for hearing of "Palestine Arab delegation").

A/SPC/L.201. Afghanistan, Guinea, Mauritania, Pakistan: draft resolution, co-sponsored orally by Indonesia, Mali, Mongolia and Senegal, approved by Special Political Committee on 11 December 1970, meeting 751, by roll-call vote of 49 to 14, with 37 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Ceylon, Chad, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen,* People's Republic of Congo, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Israel, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Swaziland, United States, Uruguay.

Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dahomey, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Guyana, Haiti, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

A/SPC/L.202, A/C.5/1361, A/8245. Administrative and financial implications of draft resolution recommended by Special Political Committee in A/8237. Statements by Secretary-General and report of Fifth Committee.

A/8237. Report of Special Political Committee.

* On 30 November 1970, Southern Yemen informed the United Nations that it had changed its name to the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.

RESOLUTION 2727(XXV), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8237, adopted by Assembly on 15 December 1970, meeting 1931, by roll-call vote of 52 to 20, with 43 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Ceylon, Chad, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Equatorial Guinea, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Israel, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Rwanda, United States, Uruguay.

Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Central African Republic, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Laos, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, 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 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 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,

Recalling also its resolutions 2252(ES-V) of 4 July 1967, 2443(XXIII) and 2452A(XXIII) of 19 December 1968, 2535 B(XXIV) of 10 December 1969 and 2672 D (XXV) of 8 December 1970,

Further recalling Commission on Human Rights resolutions 6(XXIV) of 27 February 1968, 6(XXV) of 4 March 1969 and 10(XXVI) of 23 March 1970, the telegram of 8 March 1968 dispatched by the Commission to the Israeli authorities, the relevant resolutions of the International Conference on Human Rights held at Teheran in 1968, Economic and Social Council resolution 1515(XLVIII), adopted on 28 May 1970 on the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Women, and the other relevant resolutions of the Economic and Social Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the World Health Organization,

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

Noting with regret that the provisions of the above-mentioned resolutions have not been implemented by the Israeli authorities,

Gravely concerned for the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel,

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

2. Calls upon the Government of Israel immediately to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee embodied in its report and to comply with its obligations under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the relevant resolutions adopted by the various international organizations;

3. Requests the Special Committee, pending the early termination of the 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 human rights of the population of the occupied territories;

4. Urges the Government of Israel to receive the Special Committee, co-operate with it and facilitate its work;

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

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

7. Decides to inscribe on the provisional agenda of its twenty-sixth 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."

THE SITUATION IN AND AROUND JERUSALEM
AND ITS HOLY PLACES

In a letter of 22 July 1970 to the Secretary-General, Jordan protested against the levying by Israel of defence taxes on Jordanian citizens in the occupied City of Jerusalem and its environs, as well as against Israeli measures designed to change the Arab character of the city. Jordan pointed out that in spite of the Security Council's resolution of 3 July 1969,17/ which had condemned all measures taken by Israel to change the status of the city, Israel had neither rescinded those measures nor had it refrained from taking new measures to change the political, legal and demographic status of the city.

In another letter, dated 28 October, Jordan, after reiterating that Israel had continued its defiance of General Assembly and Security Council resolutions on the status of Jerusalem, forwarded the text of an article published in the International Herald Tribune of 17-18 October 1970, depicting some of Israel's construction plans in the Arab part of the City of Jerusalem. The letter added that the only way that those illegal measures could be stopped was to end Israel's occupation of Jerusalem.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

S/9774 (A/7975). Letter of 30 April 1970 from Kuwait.

S/9883 (A/7996), S/9897, S/9969 (A/8141). Letters of 22 July, 3 August and 28 October 1970 from Jordan.

SEARCH FOR A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT
OF THE MIDDLE EAST PROBLEM

REPORTS BY SECRETARY-GENERAL

During 1970, efforts continued in the search for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem.

In a report of 4 January 1971, the Secretary-General reviewed the efforts of his Special Representative to the Middle East, Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring, since the adoption of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 (242(1967)).18/

In June 1970, the report said, the United States proposed to Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic that they should each advise Ambassador Jarring as follows:

(1) that having accepted, and indicated their willingness to carry out, the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 in all its parts, they would designate representatives to discussions to be held under his auspices, according to such procedure and at such places and times as he might recommend, taking into account, as appropriate, each side's preference as to method of procedure and previous experience between the parties;

(2) that the purpose of the discussions was to reach agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace between them, based on mutual acknowledgement by the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Israel of each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence, and on Israel's withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, both in accordance with the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967; and

(3) that, to facilitate Ambassador Jarring's task of promoting agreement as set forth in the resolution of 22 November 1967, the parties should strictly observe, effective from 1 July at least until 1 October, the cease-fire resolutions of the Security Council.

In a note of 7 August, the Secretary-General informed the Security Council that he had been informed by the United States that its peace proposal had been accepted by the three Governments and that Ambassador Jarring had received confirmation of the acceptances by their representatives to the United Nations. The United States, he said, had received from the parties the acceptance of a standstill cease-fire for a period of 90 days, effective from 7 August until at least 5 November.

The Secretary-General stated that he and Ambassador Jarring therefore believed that there was a reasonable basis on which to renew immediately the Special Representative's contacts with the parties. It could be said, therefore, that the Jarring mission was now reactivated. The Secretary-General added that since its inception in 1967 the mission had never been suspended or inoperative, although at times - because of unavoidable circumstances - it had been relatively inactive. In his view, an important step forward had been taken in the search for peace in the Middle East.

Subsequently, the Secretary-General reported, Ambassador Jarring invited the parties to take part in discussions opening in New York on 25 August and had met on that day with each of their representatives. However, the representative of Israel had stated that he had been instructed to return to Israel. On his return on 8 September, he had informed Ambassador Jarring that Israel's acceptance of the United States peace initiative was still in effect but that in view of Egypt's grave violation of the cease-fire standstill agreement, and inasmuch as the strictest observance of that standstill agreement was one of the central elements of the United States peace initiative, Israel would be unable to participate in the talks under the auspices of the Special Representative as long as the cease-fire standstill agreement was not observed in its entirety and the original situation restored.

On 14 September 1970, in the introduction to his annual report to the General Assembly, the Secretary-General said, among other things, that the agreement of the three Governments to the peace proposal initiated by the United States, in providing a basis on which Ambassador Jarring could renew his contacts with the parties, created at the time an atmosphere of cautious hope which had been conspicuously lacking in recent years. It was, he said, a tentative indication that at long last there might be among the parties a will to peace - indispensable for any hope of progress. Now, in mid-September, there could be no doubt that the peace effort in the Middle East had suffered a severe set-back. Israel, he noted, had charged that the cease-fire standstill conditions in the Suez Canal sector had been continuously violated by the United Arab Republic and had insisted that until the original situation was restored, Israel would not participate in the talks.

Despite all the difficulties, the Secretary-General felt that failure was not inevitable nor should it be concluded that there was no longer any scope for constructive peace talks. On the contrary, it was the time to exert every possible effort towards a resumption of the talks.

The Secretary-General stressed that the matter of the standstill arrangement involved neither Ambassador Jarring nor the United Nations but only the United States and the two parties concerned. It was an area in which the United Nations had no responsibility because none had been given to it.

The Secretary-General hoped that the talks could soon be resumed; he was convinced that this was probably the one chance of a breakthrough to peace in the Middle East. The current peace move, he said, even though it had now encountered serious obstacles, had also shown that Member States, and especially four of the permanent members of the Security Council, working together both within and outside the United Nations, could reach agreement even on the most difficult and controversial problems. In particular, he added, the concurrence of the two super-powers - buttressed by France and the United Kingdom - in a positive course of action was of decisive importance.

The Secretary-General concluded by saying that the great basic problems of the Middle East still lay ahead. If the will to peace of the parties and the will to help of United Nations Members could be maintained, he believed that the efforts of the Governments concerned, of the Security Council and of Ambassador Jarring could in the end succeed.

The Secretary-General subsequently reported that while the Special Representative's talks with the Arab representatives had continued, they could not be productive because of lack of contact with the Israel representative. However, the Special Representative had held a wide range of contacts with representatives of the parties and of other Member States during the commemorative twenty-fifth session of the General Assembly and during the Assembly's debate on the Middle East.

After the adoption of the Assembly's resolution of 4 November 1970 (2628(XXV)) (see below for details), the Special Representative invited representatives of the parties to resume talks under his auspices. Although the representatives of Jordan and the United Arab Republic informed him of their willingness to do so, the representative of Israel stated that the matter was under consideration by his Government.

On 19 November, the Special Representative, in a letter to Israel's Foreign Minister, formally invited the Government of Israel to resume its participation in the discussions. On 30 December, Ambassador Jarring received a letter from Israel's Foreign Minister stating his Government's readiness to resume its participation in the talks.


CONSIDERATION BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

At its 1969 session, the General Assembly had decided that consideration of the item relating to the situation in the Middle East should be deferred to the twenty-fifth Assembly session in 1970. The item was included in the agenda of that session and discussed at plenary meetings of the Assembly held between 26 October and 4 November 1970.

By a decision taken on 4 November, the General Assembly expressed serious concern that the continuation of the grave and deteriorating situation in the Middle East constituted a serious threat to international peace and security. It reaffirmed that no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force would be recognized, and deplored the continued occupation of the Arab territories since 5 June 1967. It also expressed serious concern that the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 (242(1967))19/ - which had been unanimously adopted and provided for a peaceful settlement of the situation in the Middle East - had not yet been implemented.

The Assembly then:

(1) reaffirmed that the acquisition of territories by force was inadmissible and that, consequently, territories thus occupied had to 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; (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) recognized that respect for the rights of the Palestinians was an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

(4) urged the speedy implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 - providing for the peaceful settlement of the situation in the Middle East - in all its parts;

(5) called upon the parties directly concerned to instruct their representatives to resume contact with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in order to enable him to carry out, at the earliest possible date, his mandate for the implementation of the Council's resolution adopted on 22 November 1967 in all its parts;

(6) recommended to the parties that they extend the cease-fire for a period of three months in order that they might enter into talks under the auspices of the Special Representative with a view to giving effect to the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967;

(7) requested the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council within two months, and to the Assembly as appropriate, on the efforts of the Special Representative and on the implementation of the Council's resolution; and

(8) requested the Security Council to consider, if necessary, making arrangements, under the relevant Articles of the Charter, to ensure the implementation of its resolution.

The General Assembly took these decisions in adopting resolution 2628(XXV) on 4 November by a roll-call vote of 57 to 16, with 39 abstentions. (For text and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The text, as revised and amended, was sponsored eventually by the following 22 Members: Afghanistan, Burundi, Cameroon, Ceylon, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Guinea, India, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, the People's Republic of the Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia and Zambia.

During the debate, the sponsors revised their text and agreed to amendments put forward by France. These included the addition of the operative paragraph calling for the application of the principles: (a) of 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.

Another French amendment accepted by the sponsors was the addition of the paragraph by which the Assembly recognized that respect for the rights of the Palestinians was an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

France also proposed, and the sponsors accepted, the addition of the paragraph recommending that the parties extend the cease-fire for a three-month period in order to facilitate talks under the Special Representative's auspices with a view to giving effect to the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

Two other proposals on the situation in the Middle East were submitted to the Assembly. The first of these was a United States text, which was not pressed to a vote. The other was a text sponsored by 21 Latin American States, which was rejected by the Assembly on 4 November by a roll-call vote of 49 against to 45 in favour, with 27 abstentions. (For sponsors and voting details, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By the United States proposal, the General Assembly would have, first, endorsed the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 and urged that it be carried out in all its parts;

Second, the Assembly would have recommended to the parties and all concerned to exert their utmost efforts, taking into account the obstacles and difficulties which had arisen since the cease-fire standstill agreement went into effect, to create, in accordance with that agreement, the conditions necessary to establish the confidence in which the parties could resume discussions promptly under the auspices of the Special Representative, in accordance with the proposal contained in the Secretary-General's note of 7 August (see above).

Finally, by the United States text, the Assembly would have endorsed the Security Council's resolutions of 1967 on the cease-fire and recommended that the observance of the cease-fire as contained in the note by the Secretary-General of 7 August be extended for at least three months in order to facilitate the promotion of agreement as set forth in the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

By the Latin American proposal, the General Assembly would have, among other things, expressed its full support of the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 and affirmed the need for its speedy implementation. It would also have supported the efforts of the Special Representative to carry out his mission to promote agreement for the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

The Assembly also would have requested the parties directly concerned to instruct their representatives to resume discussions with the Special Representative to enable him to carry out as soon as possible his mission to promote agreement for the implementation of the Council's resolution in its entirety.

The Latin American text also would have had the Assembly support the Security Council's resolutions of 1967 concerning the cease-fire and recommend - in order to promote agreement as envisaged in the Council's resolution - that the cease-fire mentioned in the Secretary-General's note of 7 August 1970 should be scrupulously observed and extended for three months, with the addition of suitable measures for proper supervision of its observance, including, if possible, the use of United Nations Observers stationed in the region.

Finally, this text would have had the Assembly ask the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council within two months, and to the General Assembly as appropriate, on the efforts of the Special Representative and on the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

During the debate, the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic said his Government had asked that consideration of the situation in the Middle East be resumed by the General Assembly in view of Israel's rejection of all international efforts towards a settlement during the past three years and its insistence on following an expansionist policy, thus creating an ever increasing threat to international peace and security. In the opinion of his Government, the General Assembly should play a positive role in assisting the Security Council to implement its resolution 242(1967) of 22 November 1967.

He then charged that Israel had not only consistently refused to co-operate in all efforts at implementing that resolution but, by its withdrawal on 6 September 1970 from contacts with Ambassador Jarring, had further shown its determination to undermine efforts for peace in the Middle East. In contrast to that attitude, the United Arab Republic had not only accepted the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 but had expressed - as early as December 1967 - its readiness to fulfil all its obligations under that resolution.

With regard to the United States initiative, the United Arab Republic had, he said, accepted it in full and had designated its representative for talks with the Special Representative. Israel, however, had not made one single substantive contact with Ambassador Jarring after accepting the United States initiative and had justified its position by alleging that the United Arab Republic had violated the cease-fire arrangements.

After outlining what he described as Israel's twofold policy of military aggression and political deceit, the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic said that early in 1970 Israel had embarked upon a new stage in its aggression: it carried out daily air raids against the civilian population of the United Arab Republic, causing hundreds of deaths, and its war against civilians had also been extended to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. It was regrettable, he added, that the United States had assisted in that aggression and had continued to provide Israel with bombers and other weapons, as well as with massive economic aid. By taking that hostile position towards the Arab peoples and by supporting the aggressor, the United States obstructed the realization of peace in the Middle East.

In the view of the United Arab Republic, it had become imperative that the United Nations keep the situation in the Middle East under its active consideration, follow up constantly the efforts being made for peace and make use of its powers under the Charter until peace was finally secured by the withdrawal of Israel's forces from all the occupied Arab territories.

The Foreign Minister of Israel charged that the United Arab Republic had massively violated the cease-fire standstill agreement through the construction and forward movement of a great missile system. The result was that the equilibrium of the 7 August agreement had been broken, Israel's acceptance of the cease-fire standstill had been exploited and confidence in the validity of Egyptian commitments undermined. Israel, on the other hand, had accepted a negotiating procedure under Ambassador Jarring's auspices that would be indirect in its first phase. It had also, despite doubts, acquiesced in a cease-fire of limited duration and had declared its readiness to accept and seek agreement on the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

To make clear that its objective in territorial negotiations was not arbitrary expansion but legitimate security, Israel, its Foreign Minister went on to say, had stated its willingness to withdraw its forces, on the establishment of peace, to agreed, recognized and secure boundaries, to be determined in the peace negotiations. That policy, he added, had been conveyed to Ambassador Jarring on 6 August in the form of an affirmative response to the United States peace initiative. Under the cease-fire standstill agreement, which was the heart and centre of that initiative, and which was accepted by Egypt and endorsed by the USSR, the parties undertook to refrain from changing the status quo within a zone extending 50 kilometres to the east and west of the cease-fire line and, specifically, to do nothing but maintain installations at the existing sites. They agreed not to introduce, move forward, construct or otherwise install missiles in the zone, or carry out any work for the establishment of any new missile sites.

However, the Foreign Minister of Israel continued, contrary to those precise undertakings, Egypt had established between 500 and 600 operational SA-2 and SA-3 missiles in the standstill zone in violation of the agreement of 7 August. These, he declared, were not defensive measures but offensive preparations designed to change the cease-fire lines by renewed war. In the circumstances, it was impossible to consider negotiating a new agreement while the existing one had been shown so little respect. The most urgent task now was to restore the confidence necessary for a peace dialogue to take place.

The Foreign Minister of Israel went on to say that the General Assembly should not upset the existing consensus among the parties on the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 by giving it a new formulation, or balance, or emphasis.

He also noted that the situation in the Middle East was still being actively considered by the Security Council; any recommendation by the General Assembly implying a change in the balance of the Security Council's resolution would be in violation of the spirit of Article 12 of the Charter.20/ In those circumstances, the General Assembly should urge the parties to observe strictly the cease-fire standstill agreement and call for the restoration of the 7 August situation so that the Jarring mission could make progress in the Egyptian-Israeli sector, as well as in others.

The representative of the United States said that ever since the adoption of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967, his Government had made every effort to help achieve its objectives. It was because of that concern that it had taken the initiative which had led to the developments reported by the Secretary-General on 7 August 1970. As a result of an intensive period of quiet diplomacy, an arrangement had been worked out with the countries concerned whereby they had stated explicitly their willingness to carry out the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 in all its parts and had committed themselves to pursuing the goal of reaching agreement on a just and lasting peace. Moreover, the observance of the cease-fire had replaced the daily shelling on both sides of the Suez Canal, and the escalating danger of a great power confrontation had also eased.

Commenting on an early draft of the resolution later adopted by the Assembly, and prior to submitting the United States text, the United States representative pointed out that it had taken almost three years to get from all three of the States directly concerned explicit, public agreement to carry out the resolution of 22 November 1967 in all its parts, as well as agreement as to how discussions to that end should be conducted. In his view, it would be irresponsible for the General Assembly to adopt any resolution appearing to add to, subtract from, interpret or distort the careful balance of the Council's resolution.

The United States Government, he added, which valued the role of both the General Assembly and the Security Council in dealing with the problem of the Middle East, would urge the Assembly to avoid any unrealistic action. The objective must be agreement on a peaceful settlement, with serious efforts made to resume the discussions between the parties and to ensure discussions that would permit rapid progress towards such a settlement. The United States was ready to pledge all its efforts for the successful conclusion of those discussions; it stressed that comparable efforts were required from others seriously seeking a peaceful settlement for the Middle East.

The representative of France said that since the Charter had conferred on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, there was no question of the Assembly assuming the role of the Council or making an attempt to weaken a Council resolution. However, it would, in France's view, be appropriate for the Council to seek the Assembly's views and, because of the exceptional circumstances, the whole moral force of the Assembly would have to be brought to bear in the decision of the Council.

The French representative went on to say that the majority of Assembly Members also believed that a just and peaceful settlement in the Middle East would have to be based on the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. Moreover, the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Israel had publicly confirmed their acceptance of that resolution. Four of the permanent members of the Security Council had been working on the problem for months, each one making very constructive proposals. But the resolution of 22 November 1967 had still not been applied and, in his view, this was because of the lack of determination to accept or to force acceptance of the Security Council's recommendations. It was on that point that the moral pressure of the General Assembly had to be exerted and, if need be, a new action in the Security Council had to be taken in the light of the lessons learned from the difficulties met in efforts to implement the resolution.

The United States initiative, which deserved full support, the French representative continued, had made the resumption of the Jarring mission possible. It had also called for a resumption of the cease-fire with standstill arrangements. Those arrangements had been violated, which was regrettable, but the basic error, in France's view, was that neither the four powers, nor the Security Council, nor the United Nations had ever had to take cognizance of the cease-fire. A halt to military operations, under the guarantee of the four powers acting within the framework of the Security Council, would have had a completely different value. Peace was not determined by one or two, while United Nations Member States were reduced to the role of spectators.

As to confidence, the French representative added, there could be none on either side as long as fair settlement guaranteed by other States was not reached through negotiation. Three steps were needed: the earliest possible resumption of the Jarring mission; the extension of the cease-fire for an unspecified period; and the implementation of all the provisions of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

The USSR representative said the hostile actions of Israel against the Arab countries continued to make it impossible to establish a just and solid peace in the Middle East. This compelled the United Nations and all peace-loving Governments to adopt further steps to make Israel accept a settlement based on the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

He went on to say that Israel's aggression - maintained by international imperialist and neo-colonialist forces - aimed at liquidating progressive regimes in Arab countries and at holding back their progress towards liberation. For its part, the United States had taken such measures as the deployment of its Sixth Fleet in the eastern Mediterranean, the transfer of new Phantom aircraft and the extension of credit to Israel for the purchase in the United States of military technology and equipment.

According to the USSR spokesman, the United States had also supported Israel's expansionist plans by making the withdrawal of Israeli troops conditional upon the so-called rectification of borders. This United States policy was in direct conflict with one of the basic provisions of the Council's resolution, namely, the inadmissibility of acquiring territories by means of war.

Furthermore, he said, united action by Israel and the United States had aimed at blocking the progress of the Jarring mission, and the purpose of the United States draft resolution was to assist Israel in its defiance and block the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967. The United States draft asked for the establishment of confidence, but that could not be established without the withdrawal of Israel's troops, the USSR spokesman said. Moreover, the obstacles in the way of a settlement referred to in the United States draft were of Israel's making, supported by the United States through its insistence on air superiority for Israel in the Suez Canal area.

The USSR representative said the way to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East lay not through threat and military adventure but through the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from all occupied Arab territories - the first and most important requirement of the Council's resolution.

The USSR, he said, believed that safe borders could be achieved not by a policy of expansion but only through international legal recognition and consolidation. They might, he said, be established by setting up demilitarized zones on both sides of the borders, guaranteed by the presence of the United Nations at a number of points in those zones. Direct guarantees could be given by the four powers or by the Security Council as a whole. Agreement on all these elements of a settlement could then be included in a mutually binding agreement between the parties, presented in the form of an international act with corresponding guarantees for implementation of the provisions contained therein.

The USSR believed that it was therefore necessary that Ambassador Jarring's mission be resumed at an early date, without imaginary conditions or requirements. This had been suggested by the Secretary-General and endorsed by the Foreign Ministers of the four powers, who had agreed to take all steps to ensure a peaceful settlement on the basis of the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.


The United Kingdom representative observed that there was virtually unanimous agreement that the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 provided the only basis for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. However, the United Kingdom had never believed that a settlement should or could be imposed on the parties. It would have to be a "package deal," embodied in an agreement binding on all the parties in international law and endorsed by the Security Council. The two main elements in the package, as in the resolution of 22 November 1967, would be commitments to peace on the one hand, and the withdrawal of troops and the determination of boundaries on the other.

First, the United Kingdom spokesman said, the Arab States and Israel must agree to establish a genuine state of peace between them, and must, in particular, respect and recognize the sovereignty, territorial integrity, inviolability and political independence of each other without resorting to threats or the use of force. Second, the objective must be to establish secure and recognized boundaries. Here, the Assembly must be guided by the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and there must thus be Israeli withdrawal - with the possibility of minor rectifications - from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

With respect to Jerusalem, he said, the United Kingdom believed that any agreement on the status of that city must incorporate, as an essential part of a settlement, provision for freedom of access to the holy places and for their protection.

On the question of guarantees, he went on, the agreement should be endorsed by the Security Council, and, as an internal guarantee, the United Kingdom favoured a United Nations presence, both to supervise withdrawal and to remain in the area after withdrawal.

Other elements to be considered, according to the United Kingdom, were: the establishment of demilitarized zones under United Nations supervision; freedom of navigation for all countries through the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Strait of Tiran; the aspirations of the Palestinians; and a just settlement of the refugee problem.

Finally, its representative said, the United Kingdom did not believe that the Assembly should attempt in any way to alter a resolution of the Security Council, nor could it support any Assembly resolution which sought to amplify, modify or alter the balance of the Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.

Representatives of the Arab States, supporting the request of the United Arab Republic for consideration of the item by the General Assembly, stressed that action by the Assembly was necessary to bring about implementation of the Security Council's resolution, particularly on the question of withdrawal of Israel's troops from the occupied territories.

These representatives also expressed support for the Palestinians in their fight for the right of self-determination. Algeria, for example, said that only the Palestinians, through their legitimate representatives, could decide about the future of their country. A discussion of the situation in the Middle East could be positive only when the General Assembly recognized the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Representatives of several Arab States deplored United States military support to Israel which, they considered, had helped Israel in its aggression and in its defiance of the United Nations. They also warned against making the Middle East a special arena for the play of great power politics or attempting to solve its problems outside of the United Nations.

Several speakers from African and Asian States and Eastern Europe emphasized the need for resumption of Ambassador Jarring's mission and felt that Israel's demand for a rectification of the so-called violations of the standstill arrangements was only a pretext for sabotaging the Jarring Mission.
A majority of those participating in the debate thought that the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 provided an adequate basis for resumption of the talks and eventually for reaching a settlement; it was incumbent upon the United Nations to take effective action to translate the provisions and principles of that resolution into reality.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

S/9902. Note by Secretary-General dated 7 August 1970, on Jarring mission.

S/10070 Report by Secretary-General, dated 4 January 1971, on activities of Special Representative to Middle East.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY-25TH SESSION

General Committee, meeting 188.

Plenary Meetings 1884, 1886-1897, 1933.

A/7941. Letter of 22 January 1970 from Israel.

A/8001 and Corr.1, 2. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1969-15 June 1970, Part One, Chapter I; Part Three, Chapter I A 7; Part Four, Chapter IV F.

A/8001/Add.1. Introduction to report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, September 1970, Chapter IV, and Chapter X, paras. 154-156.

A/8002. Report of Security Council, 16 July 1969-15 June 1970, Chapters 1 and 27.

A/8077. Joint appeal of 24 September 1970 by President of General Assembly and Secretary-General.

A/8145. Letter of 30 October 1970 from Jordan.

A/L.602 and Add.1, 2 and Rev.1. Afghanistan, Burundi, Cameroon, Ceylon, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, India, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, People's Republic of Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia, Zambia: draft resolution and revision.

A/L.602/Rev.2 and Rev.2/Add.1. Revised draft resolution, sponsored by above 21 powers and by Ghana.

A/L.603. United States: draft resolution.

A/L.604. Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela: draft resolution, rejected by Assembly on 4 November 1970, meeting 1896, by roll-call vote of 45 in favour, 49 against, with 27 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dahomey, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Khmer Republic,* Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Ceylon, Chad, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, France, Gambia, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, People's Republic of Congo, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Abstaining: Burma, Central African Republic, Chile, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Iran, Kenya, Laos, Mauritius, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Philippines, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Togo,+ Turkey, United Kingdom.

* On 20 December 1970, Cambodia informed the Secretary-General that on 7 October 1970 it had changed its name to the Khmer Republic.

+ Subsequently Togo advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.

A/L.606 France: amendments to 21-power draft resolution, A/L.602.

RESOLUTION 2628(xxv), as proposed by 22 powers, A/L.602/Rev.2, adopted by Assembly on 4 November 1970, meeting 1896, by roll-call vote of 57 to 16, with 39 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, People's Republic of Congo, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Australia, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dahomey, El Salvador, Iceland, Israel, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, United States, Uruguay.

Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Barbados,* Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Central African Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Fiji, Finland, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Khmer Republic, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Niger, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

* Subsequently Barbados advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote against the draft resolution.

The General Assembly,

Seriously concerned that the continuation of the present grave and deteriorating situation in the Middle East constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security,

Reaffirming that no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized,

Deploring the continued occupation of the Arab territories since 5 June 1967,

Seriously concerned that Security Council resolution 242(1967) of 22 November 1967, which was unanimously adopted and which provides for a peaceful settlement of the situation in the Middle East, has not yet been implemented,

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. Recognizes that respect for the rights of the Palestinians is an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

4. Urges the speedy implementation of Security Council resolution 242(1967), which provides for the peaceful settlement of the situation in the Middle East, in all its parts;

5. Calls upon the parties directly concerned to instruct their representatives to resume contact with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the Middle East in order to enable him to carry out, at the earliest possible date, his mandate for the implementation of the Security Council resolution in all its parts;

6. Recommends to the parties that they extend the cease-fire for a period of three months in order that they may enter into talks under the auspices of the Special Representative with a view to giving effect to Security Council resolution 242(1967);

7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council within a period of two months, and to the General Assembly as appropriate, on the efforts of the Special Representative and on the implementation of Security Council resolution 242(1967);


8. Requests the Security Council to consider, if necessary, making arrangements, under the relevant Articles of the Charter of the United Nations, to ensure the implementation of its resolution.

A/8028. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly during its 25th session, 15 September-17 December 1970. Other decisions, p. 10.

OTHER DOCUMENTS

A/7940 (S/9607). Letter of 16 January 1970 from Jordan.

A/7942 (S/9614). Letter of 23 January 1970 from Syria.

A/7944 (S/9618). Letter of 27 January 1970 from Jordan.

A/7945 (S/9623), A/7946 (S/9629). Letters of 29 and 30 January 1970 from Israel.

A/7947 (S/9639). Letter of 5 February 1970 from Syria.

A/7948 (S/9642). Letter of 9 February 1970 from Israel.

A/7949 (S/9643). Letter of 9 February 1970 from Syria.

A/7950 (S/9646), A/7951 (S/9647). Letters of 11 and 12 February 1970 from Israel.

A/7952 (S/9654 and Corr.1). Letter of 18 February 1970 from Iraq, Jordan, Sudan, Syria and United Arab Republic.

A/7953 (S/9656). Letter of 20 February 1970 from United Arab Republic.

A/7954 (S/9658), A/7955 (S/9661). Letters of 21 and 24 February 1970 from Israel.

A/7956/Rev.1 (S/9662/Rev.1). Letter of 24 February 1970 from Mongolia.

A/7957 (S/9671). Letter of 27 February 1970 from Israel.

A/7964 (S/9713). Letter of 18 March 1970 from Lebanon.

A/7966 (S/9722). Letter of 25 March 1970 from Israel.

A/7969 (S/9744). Letter of 8 April 1970 from United Arab Republic.

A/7970 (S/9745), A/7971/Rev.1 (S/9752/Rev.1). Letters of 9 and 14 April 1970 from Israel.

A/7972 (S/9755). Letter of 15 April 1970 from United Arab Republic.

A/7974 (S/9766). Letter of 26 April 1970 from Israel.

A/7975 (S/9774). Letter of 30 April 1970 from Kuwait.

A/7976 (S/9775), A/7977 (S/9778). Letters of 1 and 4 May 1970 from United Arab Republic.

A/7978 (S/9782). Letter of 5 May 1970 from Israel.

A/7979 (S/9808). Letter of 18 May 1970 from Saudi Arabia.

A/7980 (S/9809). Letter of 21 May 1970 from Israel.

A/7981 (S/9811). Letter of 22 May 1970 from Lebanon.

A/7983 (S/9823) . Letter of 5 June 1970 from Syria.

A/7984 (S/9832), A/7985 (S/9833), A/7986 (S/9841). Letters of 9 and 18 June 1970 from Israel.

A/7988 (S/9868). Letter of 16 July 1970 from Jordan.

A/7990 (S/9881). Letter of 21 July 1970 from USSR.

A/7996 (S/9883), A/7997 (S/9885), A/8039 (S/9904), A/8051 (S/9919). Letters of 22 and 23 July, and 12 and 27 August 1970 from Jordan.

A/8063 (S/9941). Letter of 16 September 1970 from Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Republic and Yemen.

A/8075 (S/9948). Letter of 23 September 1970 from Israel.

A/8107 (S/9958). Letter of 9 October 1970 from USSR.

A/8123 (S/9963). Letter of 15 October 1970 from Syria.

A/8141 (S/9969). Letter of 28 October 1970 from Jordan.





END NOTES


1/See footnote 1.

2/See footnote 1.

3/See Y.U.N., 1968, pp. 236-37, text of resolution 262 (1968).

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

5/Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

6/For text of Article 40 of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.

7/See footnote 1.

8/See Y.U.N., 1969, pp. 241-42, text of resolution 2535 B (XXIV).

9/Ibid., pp. 514-15, text of resolution 2546(XXIV).

10/See footnote 3.

11/See Y.U.N., 1969, p. 208, text of resolution 270 (1969).

12/See footnote 4.

13/See footnote 5.

14/See Y.U.N., 1969, pp. 509-12.

15/See Y.U.N., 1968, pp. 555-56, text of resolution 2443(XXIII) .

16/See Y.U.N., 1969, pp. 514-15, text of resolution 2546(XXIV).

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

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

19/See footnote 18.

20/For text of Article 12 of the Charter, see APPENDIX II.





CHAPTER XII
ASSISTANCE TO REFUGEES IN THE NEAR EAST

During 1970, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continued to provide relief, health and education services.

Expanding enrolments in the schools run jointly by UNRWA and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), accompanied by rising prices for supplies, imposed a severe strain on Agency finances. The increase in costs again outstripped the increase in income, and the year ended with a deficit of $4.9 million and a reduction of the working capital to $5.6 million.

On 7 December 1970, the General Assembly established a nine-member Working Group on the Financing of UNRWA to recommend measures to prevent the reduction of Agency services in 1971 and assist the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General of UNRWA in reaching solutions to the problems posed by the Agency's financial crisis.

The Agency's operations were affected by the activities of the Palestinian fedayeen movements and the reactions to them of Governments in the region. In September, the confrontation between the Jordanian Government and the fedayeen led to fighting, heaviest in Amman, involving tanks and artillery. Normal life was paralysed for 10 days. As soon as the fighting ceased, UNRWA resumed operations and did much to help cope with the health needs, food shortages and other problems caused by the conflict.


ACTIVITIES IN 1970

As a result of natural increase, the number of refugees registered with UNRWA rose to 1,445,022 by December 1970. Some 57 per cent of these received rations; about 40 per cent lived in the 53 established camps or in 10 emergency camps set up for persons displaced by the 1967 hostilities. (These camps, as pointed out in the Commissioner-General's annual report for 1968-69, are not extra-territorial, and the Governments are responsible for such functions as law and order.) The Agency provided limited assistance, as a temporary measure, to some non-refugees displaced in 1967.1/

The Agency maintained its ceiling on the number of beneficiaries of basic food rations, with no allowance for population growth; an estimated 339,000 children, most of them in east Jordan, were excluded by the ceiling. However, the 835,000 rations issued monthly included emergency rations for 15,700 children of displaced refugees. In addition, UNRWA distributed at the expense of the Jordanian Government 217,000 rations monthly to displaced persons not registered with UNRWA, and 40,000 to displaced registered refugee children. The supplementary feeding programme, designed to avoid dietary deficiencies in nutritionally vulnerable groups, was continued.

The Agency pursued its programme of school-room construction to meet the growth in enrolment and to accommodate children of newly displaced refugees in east Jordan. Training facilities were expanded to some extent, as well.


In Syria, the authorities authorized UNRWA to replace tents with concrete-block shelters in the emergency camps, and construction of the shelters was started. Under a similar programme in east Jordan, a total of about 16,500 family shelter units had been built by the end of 1970. The construction programmes were funded with contributions made specifically for the purpose and not from the Agency's operating budget.
The health care programme of UNRWA included curative and preventive medical services, provided mainly through 112 outpatient health centres, of which 89 were operated directly by UNRWA. Nearly 6 million patient calls were recorded. The Agency also provided some hospital care and laboratory services.
The health programme, which receives technical guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO), included the control of contagious disease, maternal and child health care, health education, nutrition and environmental sanitation. The emphasis was on preventive care, and especially on vaccination. A cholera pandemic in the area presented high risks for the refugee population, in view of its poor living conditions. The outbreak was quickly contained through mass immunizations and environmental measures. Governments in the area co-operated with UNRWA in these measures of prevention and control.

In 1970, the UNRWA/UNESCO education and training programme for refugees became the largest item in the Agency's expenditure budget of $46 million. There were 480 UNRWA/UNESCO elementary and preparatory schools, attended by 219,378 children, in operation during the year.

The problem of the content of the Arab Government textbooks continued to engage the attention of the Director-General of UNESCO; schools in Gaza, which suffered even more than those in the West Bank, were almost completely without textbooks. However, secondary-school leaving certificate examinations were held in Gaza for the second straight year, organized by UNESCO with the agreement of the United Arab Republic and Israel authorities and the assistance of UNRWA.

The Agency continued to operate eight training centres offering two-year vocational and teacher-training courses. In September, political tensions obliged the Agency to refuse admission to new students at one centre. At the UNRWA/UNESCO Institute of Education for in-service training of under-qualified teachers, the emphasis began to shift to the training of preparatory teachers; about 80 per cent of the elementary teachers had benefited from the Institute's courses.

Of the Agency's staff of 13,883, more than half were teachers and all but a tiny fraction were Palestine refugees. The staff included 133 international staff members, including 36 on loan from UNESCO, WHO and the United Nations.

CONSIDERATION BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

REPORTS OF COMMISSIONER-GENERAL

ANNUAL REPORT

In his annual report to the General Assembly, covering the period from 1 July 1969 to 30 June 1970, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA assessed the critical financial position of the Agency which, he said, must be viewed against a background of deepening frustration and uncertainty.

The Agency was able to maintain the integrity of its relief and health services and even to expand its education programme which in 1970, for the first time in the Agency's history, became the main item of expenditure. However, this was possible only because the Commissioner-General, in full agreement with the Secretary-General, had decided not to put into effect all the curtailments in UNRWA'S programme that the General Assembly was informed at its 1969 session would have to be made during the year.

As a result, UNRWA would begin 1971 in an even weaker financial situation than it had faced at the start of 1970, when its estimated deficit was about $5 million. It seemed inconceivable to the Commissioner-General that the Agency could continue operations through 1971 under these conditions. It was therefore essential that its budget for 1971 be balanced, either by the assurance of adequate income to maintain the existing level of services or by a radical review of its role and programme. In this regard, the Commissioner-General noted that the only area in which major savings could be made was education, although this would deal a grievous blow at the most constructive part of the Agency's activities. The Commissioner-General requested the General Assembly to make an unequivocal decision on the Agency's budget at its 1970 session.

The report then turned to what the Commissioner-General termed the most significant feature of the year under review: the marked change in the Agency's environment, due primarily to a transformation in the political role of the Palestine refugee community - which had not been without effect on the 13,000 Palestinians serving the Agency - and the acceptance by the refugee community and by host Governments of a representative, negotiating role for the Palestine politico-military organizations. While this development did not affect equally each of the Agency's five fields of operation, it could be considered as the factor which, together with the Agency's financial position, might require a radical reconsideration of UNRWA'S role, methods and programme.

In Lebanon and east Jordan, the considerable growth in numbers, fire-power and influence of the Palestine military organizations and the enhanced political consciousness of the Palestine refugee community raised basic questions of authority and was reflected in the attitude of UNRWA's locally recruited staff. In Beirut, members of one Palestinian organization intruded into Agency buildings and published threats against UNRWA staff members. At the Siblin Training Centre in Lebanon there were continual strikes by staff and students and a virtual breakdown in discipline. In east Jordan, the successive confrontations between the Government and the Palestine organizations posed many problems for the Agency and had repercussions on its work and on staff relations. In both Jordan and Lebanon, however, co-operation had continued between the Agency and the two Governments concerned in the common task of caring for the refugees.

The Commissioner-General noted that although successive resolutions of the General Assembly had referred to co-operation with the Governments of the host countries in which UNRWA operated, there was no reference to consultation with the refugee community. This consultation did take place in practice, however, either through the host Governments or informally. There were already signs that, just as the refugee community currently exercised an agreed right to consultation with Governments in host countries in one fourth or another, it would increasingly expect to be consulted on Agency affairs, in the same way that the Governments of host countries were consulted by the Agency, although not necessarily on the same subjects. The Arab host Governments had already recommended that representatives from the Palestine Liberation Organization should take part in future meetings on education on the same basis as the representatives of the Governments of the Arab host States, the Commissioner-General noted.

In the West Bank and Gaza, UNRWA was confronted with the same operational problems as the previous year, including the arrest, detention, deportation and imprisonment of its staff for alleged illegal activities. In the year ending 30 June 1970, 14 UNRWA staff members had been arrested in the West Bank and 57 in Gaza, and many others had been detained. The number of staff under detention or serving sentences of imprisonment at any one time remained at about 40, some of whom had been detained in prison for more than a year without charges having been brought against them.

Other problems facing the Agency in these areas included the movement of supplies into occupied territories and the obtaining of travel permits for staff. The decision of the Israeli military authorities to build roads in several camps of the Gaza strip resulted in the demolition of shelters without prior notice to UNRWA'S field director; the authorities subsequently agreed that there would be no more demolition until alternative shelters had been made available and that the Agency would be reimbursed for the costs of the new constructions.

In education, the year was marred throughout by student and teacher strikes, protests, shooting incidents and damage to UNRWA school buildings and equipment. The Commissioner-General noted that recommendations resulting from the June 1970 meeting between representatives of UNRWA, UNESCO and the Arab host countries raised further serious problems for the Agency from both a financial point of view and on grounds of principle; the Governments of the Arab host countries recommended, for example, that the UNRWA/UNESCO schools be considered as private schools and made subject to the laws applicable to private schools.

The Government of Israel continued to prohibit the import of a major part of the textbooks prescribed for use in Gaza and the West Bank, the Commissioner-General further stated. However, consultations between UNRWA and the Israeli authorities continued, and some progress was being made towards a solution.

Concluding his report, the Commissioner-General referred again to the two major difficulties faced by UNRWA: the financial crisis and the change in the Agency's operational environment. With regard to the latter, the Commissioner-General said that the Agency had sought, in the interest of the refugees, to adapt itself to a changing situation while seeking at the same time to maintain the integrity of its operations incumbent on a United Nations agency. But the pressures to which UNRWA had been subject during the year had been very great; if they continued to grow, they could seriously jeopardize future operations.

Concurrently, UNRWA'S finances continued to be drained. Unless an increase in income of about $5 million could be assured, there would inevitably be substantial cuts in the education programme which would deal a grievous blow at the most constructive sector of the Agency's work and produce repercussions that might well shatter the Agency to the point of disintegration. No less than the continued existence of UNRWA was at stake.


STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL SITUATION

By a letter dated 13 August 1970, addressed to Member States of the United Nations and 270 members of the specialized agencies, the Secretary-General transmitted the text of a statement of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA on the financial position of the Agency.

The Commissioner-General noted that the financial situation of UNRWA continued to deteriorate during the first half of 1970. The funds provided to the Agency were still nearly $5 million less than its total requirements. Various reductions had been made by the Agency, but others had been postponed until the General Assembly could once again examine the problem. Unless the General Assembly acted at its 1970 session, the Agency was likely to collapse either for lack of funds or under the stresses caused by the dismantling of a major part of the programme.


SPECIAL REPORTS

In two notes, dated respectively 2 October and 6 November 1970, the Secretary-General transmitted to United Nations Members the text of two special reports by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA on the situation in Jordan following the outbreak of fighting on 17 September.

The Commissioner-General reported that 11 local staff members of UNRWA had been killed during the fighting. Although the total number of deaths among refugees registered with the Agency was not known, it was believed to be lower than the estimates reported in the press.

Damage was widespread. Two large camps in Amman, where some 70,000 refugees lived, had suffered the most heavily; the cost of replacing shelters in these camps alone might be in the order of $2 million, the Commissioner-General said. Nevertheless, regular UNRWA services were being restored, and the UNRWA/UNESCO-operated schools were to be reopened at the same time as Government schools. The Commissioner-General urgently appealed to Governments, organizations and individuals for funds to enable the Agency to restore its services and to meet the emergency needs of the refugees in Jordan.

The Secretary-General, in transmitting the reports, fully endorsed the appeal of the Commissioner-General. Earlier, on 24 September 1970, the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly had issued a joint appeal in which they urged all Members of the United Nations and members of the specialized agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations and private individuals, to provide the needed humanitarian aid to the Palestine refugees and to the victims of the fighting in Jordan.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY DISCUSSIONS

The Commissioner-General's annual report and his special reports on UNRWA'S operations in Jordan were considered by the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly at 17 meetings held between 18 November and 4 December 1970.

By a letter dated 12 November 1970, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia requested that the "Palestine Arab delegation" be heard by the Committee.

By a letter dated 23 November, 26 States - Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Cuba, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, the People's Republic of the Congo, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Republic, Yemen and Yugoslavia - requested that "the delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization" be heard.

On 18 and 24 November, respectively, the Special Political Committee decided to authorize persons constituting such delegations to address the Committee, on the understanding that authorization did not imply any recognition whatsoever of either delegation.

Reservations concerning this procedure were expressed by the representative of Israel.

Introducing the annual report of UNRWA,the Commissioner-General said the year under discussion had been in many respects the most difficult in the history of the Agency. The Agency's problems were basically of two kinds: those relating to its financial situation and those concerning its operating environment. He would refer only to the financial problems.

The financial crisis had become so serious that the very continuance of the Agency was threatened; unless there was a substantial increase in the amounts pledged to the Agency, a major crisis was inescapable, the Commissioner-General said.

The increase in UNRWA's costs could be attributed to several factors: the natural increase in the refugee population; the inflationary trend in the cost of supplies and wages; the greater needs created by the hostilities of 1967; and the increased cost of education, due chiefly to larger student enrolment. Since the Agency's income had increased at only half the rate required, the deficit had become more serious every year.

Various economy measures had been put into effect in the year under review. The Agency had reduced its relief programme, restricted its health and education activities, and curtailed its education programme. It had also reduced its subsidy payments to certain Governments. These measures had resulted in an annual saving of nearly $2 million. Other reductions had been deferred in the hope that the General Assembly would find some solution to the problem.

The Commissioner-General expressed the hope that no further reductions would be considered and that some of the discontinued services, which were fully justified, could be restored. That, however, would require an increase of between $5 million and $7 million in the Agency's income for 1971. There was no doubt that this amount could be raised if each contributing State paid a sum equal to its highest previous contribution and if all States which did not currently contribute made contributions on a comparable level, the Commissioner-General stated.

During the debate, discussion centered on the Agency's financial crisis and on the political aspects of the refugee situation.

The representative of Syria, speaking on behalf of the four Arab host countries (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the United Arab Republic), said that when the Commissioner-General pleaded for funds for refugee relief so that operations would not come to a full halt by September 1971, it was apparent why the need existed: the host countries alone could not cope with the problem.

In reviewing the UNRWA programme, the Syrian representative said it was difficult to see how the relief and medical services of the Agency could be further reduced, and that any cuts in the education programme would have devastating repercussions.

With regard to contributions to UNRWA, the representative of Syria stated that since 1950, the Arab host countries had contributed $19 million to the Agency's budget; an additional $135 million had been contributed directly to the refugees.

These figures of direct help by the Arab countries should be compared with Israel's behaviour, the Syrian representative said. Israeli authorities illegally detained UNRWA officials and did not admit refugee students to the Agency training centres on the occupied West Bank. Israel disregarded the right of repatriation and compensation to refugees, in defiance of repeated General Assembly resolutions, as well as the General Assembly's resolution of 19 December 1968 2/ calling for the return of persons displaced by the hostilities of June 1967. Israel had destroyed many shelters, schools and buildings for its own military purposes and had refused to pay compensation; the claims of the Agency regarding the losses sustained during the June 1967 hostilities were still under consideration by the Israeli Government.

The Syrian representative said that it was often charged that the Arab Governments inhibited the settlement or employment of the refugees in order to keep alive the Palestine issue. The evidence was quite to the contrary. After 1948, those refugees who possessed skills needed in the Arab countries found jobs almost immediately and became self-supporting. However, 70 per cent of the working force that left Palestine in 1948 came from the rural sector and consequently became surplus farm workers in Arab countries that already had such a surplus. They became dependent on international charity not because they were held as hostages but because they were unemployable under the competitive employment conditions that then prevailed and continued to prevail.

The economic realities of the Arab people of Palestine, of Israel and of the Arab countries should also be taken into account, the Syrian representative said. In 1948, the zionist settlers took by force many millions of dollars worth of Arab Palestine property and real estate. Since 1948, the foreign aid received annually by each Israeli citizen was greater than the average per capita gross income of each Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese or Jordanian. The total expenditures of UNRWA from 1955 to 1966 ($627 million) were roughly the same as what Israel had received in foreign aid in 1964 alone ($624 million) .

The zionists knew that only the maintenance of a climate of hostility allowed them to sustain the inflow of outside aid, which was necessary to maintain Israel's economy at its current level, the Syrian representative said. It was evident that the zionist settlers themselves realized that the only solution was expansion by force of an economic domination of regional proportions which, in their eyes, would then take the form of peace and of mutual co-operation. While awaiting the achievement of that colonial peace, and while the deficit of UNRWA's budget was being discussed, the Israelis were continuing their spoliation of the Palestinian people and were already beginning to strip the other Arab countries of their resources. This was all being done in the name of civilization, self-defence and peace.

The representative of Israel said that, more than any other aspect of the Middle East conflict, the refugee problem over the years had become enveloped in passion and acrimony. A solution to the refugee problem, which was both vital and possible, would require an attitude of understanding and co-operation on the part of the Arab States.

The Government of Israel had suggested that an international conference of countries contributing to UNRWA, the Arab States and Israel be convened at an early date to agree on a five-year plan for solving the refugee problem. The Arab States had rejected the proposal. Moreover, since 1948, efforts made by the United Nations to resettle the Palestine refugees had consistently been rejected by the Arab Governments, which instead had turned the refugees into an instrument of continued warfare against Israel. While United Nations assistance continued to flow into the refugee camps, they had become bases for terrorist groups whose avowed aim was to destroy Israel. Now the Arab Governments were suggesting that the terrorist organizations grouped in the so-called Palestine Liberation Organization should be given advisory status with UNESCO and UNRWA, an irresponsible suggestion fraught with dire implications.

The Israeli Government was prepared to take certain security risks for the sake of the refugees, but there were limits beyond which an influx of refugees could become a direct threat to the welfare and security of the population, the Israeli representative said, and he recalled that by its resolution of 11 December 1948 3/ the General Assembly had made any return of refugees conditional upon peace.

Nevertheless, over the years Israel had admitted approximately 50,000 refugees displaced by the 1948 hostilities. Since 1967, Israel had been granting permits for the return of West Bank and Gaza inhabitants, but little more than half of the permits issued had been used. The return to the West Bank and Gaza had continued under the family reunion scheme and on the basis of special arrangements for hardship cases: under these arrangements, more than 18,000 Arab inhabitants had returned. Moreover, in 1970 alone, 55,000 visitors from Arab States had been allowed to enter Israeli-administered areas, and a considerable number of these visitors had applied for authorization to remain.

The Israeli representative went on to say that it had been shown over the years that Arab refugees could be integrated into the local economies. For hundreds of thousands of refugees, UNRWA relief was merely a source of additional income, since the Commissioner-General had reported that between 50 and 60 per cent of the total number of registered refugees were economically independent or partially self-supporting.

The aim of the Israelis in the Israeli-administered areas, its representative continued, was to improve the standard of living of the refugees and to make them self-supporting, to encourage economic development, and to reduce security measures. During the previous year, Israel had contributed $4 million directly to the refugees for education, medical services and social welfare; the refugees also benefited indirectly from services that were provided to the general population of the administered areas. In addition, since 1967, the Government of Israel had contributed about $2.8 million to UNRWA.

The security measures which the Israeli Government was sometimes obliged to take were vital for the protection of the Arab population which, more often than the Jews, was victimized by Arab terror attacks. Israel's representative called for an end to bloodshed and urged the Arab Governments to think of the refugee problem in terms of peace and understanding with Israel.

Early in the discussion, the representatives of Norway and Turkey appealed to the Special Political Committee to concentrate on the financial crisis of the Agency. The Committee was not called upon to find a solution to the political problems of the Middle East, the Norwegian representative said, but to raise $5 million more for the Agency than had been contributed in 1969.

The United States said that the Security Council, on 22 November 1967 4/ had recognized that the problem of the Palestine refugees was inextricably linked with the other issues that divided Israel and its Arab neighbours. Despite its most rigorous efforts, UNRWA could not solve all the refugees' problems. However, while the search for peace continued, the basic needs of thousands of refugees must be met. This task could be performed only by UNRWA, which needed and deserved the support of every Government. The United States added that it was concerned at the Commissioner-General's statement that host Government responsibility for the maintenance of security and order in the refugee camps had not yet been fully reasserted; the United States said that it supported the Commissioner-General's position that UNRWA should deal only with governmental authorities in that respect.

Austria, Belgium, Canada, Ceylon, Denmark, France, Greece, Iran, Ireland, Liberia and the United Kingdom said that priority should be given to the Agency's financial situation and that it was unprofitable to discuss the political background.

Other States, however, said that the Committee could not ignore the political aspects of the refugee problem. The real problem of the Middle East, the United Republic of Tanzania said, was not the lack of adequate financial and material support for the refugees but the denial of the basic, legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestine people.

Arab representatives said the establishment of UNRWA had been an emergency measure which should not obscure the real problem - the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. The Palestinians were waging a heroic struggle for their right to exist and to determine their own future. Only when the Arabs of Palestine were allowed freely to exercise their right to self-determination could a just and durable solution to their problem be found. In the meantime, the representative of Tunisia said, the charitable aspect of the Agency's work was serving as a sop to the conscience of the international community, which had committed the greatest injustice in history by uprooting an entire people from their homeland and enclosing them in camps.

The spokesmen of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestine Arab delegation said the Palestinian tragedy began with the flagrant injustice of the United Nations partition of 1947. The Palestinians could not be expected to endure such a tragedy and injustice indefinitely. Like the struggle of the various Afro-Asian peoples against colonialism, the struggle of the people of Palestine to liberate their homeland was legitimate. The Palestinian revolution aimed at creating a State where Jew, Christian and Muslim could live in harmony, the spokesmen said; it sought to relieve UNRWA of refugee care by transforming the refugee into a normal citizen in his own homeland. Any attempt to solve the Palestine problem on the basis of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967 5/ would be futile, for it would only perpetuate an injustice.

The spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization also noted that he looked forward to a more fruitful contact with UNRWA so that the Agency might work with the Palestine refugees as well as for them.

Kuwait, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Yugoslavia supported consultations between the Arab liberation movements and UNRWA. The representative of Kuwait said consultations with the representatives of the refugees did not violate the mandate of the Commissioner-General; on the contrary, failure to consult with them would violate the mandate.

The USSR said that although the question of the Palestine refugees was being considered in the Special Political Committee in the context of its humanitarian aspect, it was in origin and essence a political question that resulted from Israel's expansionist and aggressive policy towards the Arab countries, causing the displacement of the Palestinian people and the violation of their fundamental rights. Those rights had been repeatedly recognized by the United Nations in numerous resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, beginning with its resolution of 11 December 1948. 6/ The Israeli Government had not only failed to implement these resolutions but by its acts of aggression in June 1967 had widened the scope of the problem. The USSR staunchly supported the legitimate rights of the Arab people of Palestine and felt that the United Nations should oblige Israel to implement its decisions on the matter forthwith.

The representatives of the Eastern European States expressed views similar to those of the USSR. They stated that the solution to the Palestine problem could be found in the unconditional implementation of the United Nations resolutions adopted since 1948. The representative of Ukrainian SSR said that by various resolutions the Assembly had identified Israel as the responsible party in the problem of the Palestine refugees and had drawn attention to the inalienable right of the Palestinians to repatriation or adequate compensation.

Albania said the United Nations was paralyzed in the pernicious grasp of the two big powers and could not solve the problem of the Palestine refugees.

Almost all States, however, paid tribute to the work done by the Commissioner-General and the staff of UNRWA. There was general agreement that there should be no further reductions in the Agency's services, particularly in education, and that some means should be found of increasing the Agency's resources.

The United States said that over the years its assistance to the Agency had amounted to nearly $500 million, a preponderant share of the total contributed to UNRWA. It appealed for generous contributions to the Agency, in particular from Governments that had failed to do their share, and from private voluntary organizations.

The United Kingdom said the Agency's financial problems could be solved only if the more than 50 countries which regularly voted for the continuation of the Agency's mandate but made no financial contribution to its work made a contribution, even on a modest scale. It was particularly regrettable that the USSR and other Eastern European countries, which had close contact with the area, had so far made no contribution whatsoever to UNRWA.

France expressed the hope that voluntary financing of the Agency would be maintained, since it reflected the humanitarian nature of the Agency while avoiding any further increase in the United Nations budget. Ireland said that while voluntary financing was the most realistic method in the present circumstances, other methods of financing likely to win support should be carefully considered.

Several representatives referred to proposals made by the Commissioner-General in 1969 for alternative methods of financing, including the transfer of part of the expenses of UNRWA to the United Nations budget. Morocco, supporting this proposal, said the time had come for the United Nations to shoulder its direct responsibilities under the United Nations Charter for the life and fate of the Palestinian people. The United Arab Republic said the idea of transferring UNRWA's international staff costs to the regular United Nations budget deserved serious consideration.

Pakistan said the financial burden of the Agency should fall entirely upon the States that had supported zionism in creating an illegal State. The Lebanese representative noted that while Lebanon did not want to minimize the importance of United States contributions to UNRWA, it did not think that the $500 million the United States had allocated for UNRWA could be compared with the $7,000 million it had given over the same period to Israel to sustain that country in its war of aggression against the Arabs.

The USSR said it would continue to assist the refugees on a bilateral basis, although it welcomed the support given to UNRWA by other countries. Poland and Romania also said they gave bilateral aid to the refugees.

Several States, including China, Italy, Turkey and Yugoslavia, said that if the persons displaced by the hostilities of 1967 were allowed to return to their homes, the financial difficulties of the Agency would be lessened.

On 25 November, prior to the annual pledging conference for UNRWA, the Chairman of the Special Political Committee stated that most Committee Members had voiced their concern about the financial situation of the Agency and had agreed that grave consequences would ensue from the reduction of services to refugees. It had been repeatedly urged that the situation required an additional and greater effort on the part of the international community. He therefore appealed to all Members to represent that situation urgently to their Governments, whether already contributors to UNRWA or not, so that further hardship and bitterness among the Palestine refugees might be averted by a demonstration of practical concern for their welfare.

On 1 December, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA informed the Special Political Committee of the results of the annual pledging conference. He stated that 43 countries were represented at the conference, 12 of which had increased their contributions. However, the Agency's estimated deficit for 1971 would still be between $5.5 million and $6 million. If additional income were not found, it would be necessary to reduce expenditures.

The Commissioner-General expressed the hope that appeals for contributions would be answered, and that Governments would continue to consider whether there were other ways by which the Agency's finances could be put on a sounder basis. In the meantime, however, it was necessary to consider what reductions could be made in the already minimal services to the Palestine refugees. In addition, subsidies for education, health and relief previously paid to a number of Governments would have to be discontinued indefinitely, although this would throw the burden on the Governments concerned.

On 2 December, the Secretary-General addressed the Special Political Committee on the seriousness of UNRWA's financial position. He stated that if the Agency was not to collapse during 1971, it either had to reduce its already minimal services to the refugees or find a way adequately to increase its income. To take the first of these alternatives would constitute a shameful failure by the United Nations to live up to its moral obligations, the Secretary-General said. Moreover, any further reduction in services would add to the tension in the Middle East. Thus, the Committee must once again address itself to the second alternative, to provide adequate financial means for UNRWA.

He expressed the hope that the appeal launched by the Director-General of UNESCO on behalf of education services for the refugees would receive a generous response.

The Secretary-General also appealed to all Governments to consider again what further contributions they could make to the Agency.

Following the Secretary-General's appeal, a number of States expressed distress at the seriousness of the Agency's financial situation. The representative of Jordan said it was now clear that the intention was to throw much of the burden of the Agency's work on the Governments concerned, in particular on his Government. Jordan, however, was unable to assume any further financial and other responsibilities towards the refugees, its representative said. The time had come for Members to find in their collective will a sounder basis on which UNRWA could carry on its humanitarian duties. He proposed that a special session of the General Assembly be convened to review the Agency's financial situation. The Jordanian proposal was supported by the representatives of Kuwait, Lebanon and Yemen.

The representative of Ghana suggested that United Nations radio and television launch a campaign to explain the work of the Agency. There was confusion in the minds of certain Governments, he said, between UNRWA and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, particularly since in the past the two organizations held pledging conferences at the same time.

The Norwegian representative said the Special Political Committee must show a greater sense of realism and concern than it had hitherto done with regard to the refugee situation and the financial difficulties of UNRWA. The representative suggested that a working group be established to study ways of ensuring a more stable financial foundation for the Agency.

The Norwegian proposal was subsequently set forth in a draft resolution, which was one of six resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and described below.

DECISIONS BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

WORKING GROUP ON FINANCING

On 7 December 1970, the General Assembly established a Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. The Assembly took this step after noting with grave concern the acute financial situation of UNRWA and its serious implications for the future work of the Agency.

The Working Group, consisting of nine Member States to be designated by the President of the General Assembly in consultation with the Secretary-General, was to study all aspects of the financing of the Agency.

The Assembly requested the Working Group, in consultation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, to present an interim report to the General Assembly not later than 14 December 1970, containing recommendations on possible measures to be taken to prevent a reduction of Agency services in 1971. The Working Group was also requested to assist the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General of UNRWA in reaching solutions to the problems posed by the Agency's financial crisis, and to present a comprehensive report on all aspects of the Agency's financing to the Assembly in 1971.

These actions by the General Assembly were embodied in resolution 2656(XXV), which was adopted without vote on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee. The resolution was based on a text sponsored in the Committee by Norway, and approved by the Committee on 4 December by a vote of 85 to 0, with 9 abstentions. (For text, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below. )

In accordance with the General Assembly's decision, France, Ghana, Japan, Lebanon, Norway, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States were designated as members of the Working Group.


The Working Group held five meetings between 9 and 14 December. It then submitted to the Assembly an interim report containing its recommendations on possible measures to be taken to prevent the reduction of UNRWA'S services in 1971.

Among the recommendations of the Working Group were the following: the General Assembly should renew its appeal to all non-contributing Governments to contribute and should request all Governments already contributing to increase their contributions; contributing Governments should endeavour to make early payment of at least a substantial portion of their contribution with a view to meeting the liquidity crisis of UNRWA; the Assembly should appeal to non-governmental organizations, foundations and individuals for contributions; serious consideration should be given to the possibility of public fund-raising campaigns in the early part of 1971. The report said the Working Group would attempt to deal at a later stage with the basic problem of the shortfall of income in relation to expenditure requirements.

The Working Group recommended to the General Assembly the adoption of a draft resolution concerning its work. At a plenary meeting on 15 December 1970, the Assembly, without vote, adopted the text as proposed by the Working Group, as resolution 2728(XXV).

Thereby, the Assembly recalled its grave concern about the acute financial situation of UNRWA and took account of the need to take all possible measures to prevent a reduction of the services being provided by the Agency to the Palestine refugees.

The Assembly then: approved the report of the Working Group; endorsed its recommendations and urged the full co-operation of all concerned for their implementation; requested the Working Group to continue its work in accordance with the General Assembly resolution of 7 December and this resolution; and renewed its appeal to all Governments to join in a collective effort to solve the financial crisis of UNRWA. (For text, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)


OTHER DECISIONS

The General Assembly took four other actions with regard to the situation of the Palestine refugees.

By the first of these, the Assembly: (1) noted with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees, as provided for by its resolution of 11 December 1948, 7/ had not been effected, that no substantial progress had been made in the programme endorsed by its resolution of 26 January 1952 8/ for the reintegration of refugees, either by repatriation or resettlement and that, therefore, the situation of the refugees continued to be a matter of serious concern; (2) expressed its thanks to the Commissioner-General and the staff of UNRWA 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; (3) directed the Commissioner-General of UNRWA to continue his efforts in taking such measures, including rectification of the relief rolls, as to assure, in co-operation with the Governments concerned, the most equitable distribution of relief based on need; (4) noted with regret that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine had been unable to achieve progress in implementing the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948;9/ and requested the Commission to exert continued efforts towards the implementation thereof.


The Assembly then directed attention to the continuing critical financial position of UNRWA. It noted that despite the successful efforts of the Commissioner-General to collect additional contributions to help relieve the serious budget deficit of the previous year, contributions continued to fall short of the funds needed to cover essential budget requirements. The Assembly therefore called upon all Governments, as a matter of urgency, to make the most generous efforts possible to meet the anticipated needs of the Agency, particularly in the light of the budgetary deficit projected in the Commissioner-General's report; it urged non-contributing Governments to contribute and contributing Governments to consider increasing their contributions.

These decisions were embodied in resolution 2672A(XXV), adopted by the Assembly on 8 December by 111 votes to 2, with 1 abstention. This action was taken on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee in which the text, proposed by the United States was approved on 4 December by 91 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.

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

In another action, the General Assembly, expressing its concern about the continued human suffering resulting from the June 1967 hostilities in the Middle East, took the following steps: (1) 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 currently displaced and in serious need of continued assistance as a result of the June 1967 hostilities; and (2) strongly appealed to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously for the above purposes to UNRWA and to the other inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations concerned.

These decisions of the General Assembly were embodied in resolution 2672 B (XXV), which was adopted on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, on 8 December, by 114 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions.

The text was sponsored in the Special Political Committee by 17 States: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and Yugoslavia. It was approved by the Special Political Committee on 4 December by a roll-call vote of 97 to 0, with 3 abstentions.

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

By another action, the General Assembly, recognizing that the problem of the Palestinian Arab refugees had 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 of 10 December 1969 10/ reaffirming the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine; and bearing in mind the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (see pp. 789-92): (1) recognized that the people of Palestine were entitled to equal rights and self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and (2) 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.

These decisions were embodied in resolution 2672 C(XXV), which was adopted by the Assembly on 8 December by a roll-call vote of 47 to 22, with 50 abstentions. Prior to the vote, the Assembly had approved (by a roll-call vote of 49 to 44, with 27 abstentions) a motion by Somalia that the decision on the draft be by a simple majority vote. A proposal by the Dominican Republic for a two-thirds majority for approval was not voted on in consequence of approval of the Somali proposal.

The text was sponsored in the Special Political Committee by Afghanistan, Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan and Somalia. It was approved by the Committee on 4 December by a roll-call vote of 46 to 19, with 37 abstentions.

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

Introducing the text in the First Committee, the representative of Somalia said that it was undeniable that the people of Palestine were entitled to equal rights and self-determination, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It was not enough to provide relief to the Palestine refugees - they must be given the means to further their own social, political and economic development.

Some States that voted against the draft explained that they were doing so because it questioned Israel's right to exist as an independent and sovereign State and would also jeopardize the efforts for a peaceful settlement of the Middle East problem as provided for by the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967.11/ Other States said they had abstained because of the imprecision of the language of the text.

In a final action, the General Assembly expressed its grave concern about the plight of the persons displaced by the hostilities of 1967 and its conviction that their plight could best be relieved by their speedy return to their homes and to the camps which they formerly occupied. The Assembly considered that the plight of the displaced persons continued since they had not been able to return to their homes and camps.

The Assembly called once more upon the Government of Israel to take immediately and without any further delay effective steps for the return of the displaced persons, and requested the Secretary-General to follow the implementation of this resolution and to report thereon to the General Assembly.

These decisions were set forth in resolution 2672 D(XXV), adopted by the Assembly on 8 December 1970 by a recorded vote of 93 to 5, with 17 abstentions. This action was taken on the recommendation of the Special Political Committee, in which the draft text was sponsored by Afghanistan, India, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Somalia and Yugoslavia. The text was approved by the Committee on 4 December by a roll-call vote of 83 to 7, with 12 abstentions.

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


PLEDGES AND PAYMENTS FOR 1970

For the calendar year 1970, 57 countries and territories pledged the equivalent of $40,953,631 towards UNRWA'S budget. As at 31 December 1970, the equivalent of $30,533,197 had been received in payment of these pledges. In addition, non-governmental organizations, private individuals and business corporations contributed a total of $1,508,573 to UNRWA during the year.

ASSISTANCE TO REFUGEES IN THE NEAR EAST
PLEDGES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNRWA
FOR YEAR ENDING 31 DECEMBER 1970
(showing equivalent in U.S. dollars of pledges
and contributions in cash, kind and services)

Pledging Contribution
Government Pledge Received

Abu Dhabi 10,000 10,000
Australia 201,600 83,117 a/
Austria 20,000 20,000
Belgium 76,650 76,650
Canada 1,261,723 1,261,723
Ceylon 800 800
China 30,000 30,000
Cyprus 240 240
Denmark 643,347 583,347
Federal Republic of Germany 3,161,431 3,161,431 b/
Finland 60,000 60,000
France 1,382,918 583,819
Gaza Authorities 106,020 106,020
Ghana 3,000 -
Greece 16,000 15,000
Holy See 7,500 7,500
Iceland 9,939 -
India 13,333 -
Indonesia 5,268 5,268
Iran 16,049 16,049
Iraq 100,000 100,000
Ireland 50,000 50,000
Israel 593,812 558,098
Italy 481,285 -
Japan 350,000 350,000
Jordan 178,951 178,951
Kuwait 220,000 220,000
Lebanon 51,814 51,814
Liberia 6,000 -
Libya 100,000 -
Luxembourg 3,000 3,000
Malaysia 1,500 1,500
Monaco 180 180
Morocco 39,705 39,705
Netherlands 166,903 166,903
New Zealand 67,200 -
Niger 500 -
Nigeria 5,000 5,000
Norway 181,818 181,818
Pakistan 20,969 20,969
Philippines 1,250 1,250
Qatar 12,000 12,000
Republic of Viet-Nam 3,000 -
Saudi Arabia 297,778 297,778
Sierra Leone 6,666 6,666
Singapore 1,000 1,000
Spain 704,787 704,787
Sudan 554 554
Sweden 2,193,081 2,193,081
Switzerland 513,455 420,862
Syria 92,105 63,425
Trinidad and Tobago 1,500 1,500
Tunisia 5,000 5,000
Turkey 15,000 -
United Kingdom 4,692,000 4,692,000
United States 22,750,000 c/ 14,164,392 c/
Yugoslavia 20,000 20,000
---------- -----------
40,953,631 30,533,197


a/ The remainder of the Australian Government's pledge, which is deposited in UNRWA's procurement account for the purchase of supplies in Australia, has not yet been utilized.

b/ Because the fiscal year of the Federal Republic of Germany does not coincide with UNRWA's, the contribution shown represents payments for the first part of the Government's contribution period for 1970.

c/ Since the United States Government's fiscal year ends in June, the pledge shown comprises one-half the United States allocation for 1969/70 and one-half the allocation for 1970/71; the contribution shown as received is limited to the amount paid against this pledge in calendar year 1970 (and excluding payments received against the previous year's pledge).

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

GENERAL ASSEMBLY-25TH SESSION

Special Political Committee, meetings 726-730, 732-743.

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.

Plenary Meetings 1918, 1919, 1921, 1922, 1926, 1931.

A/8001. Report of Secretary-General on work of the Organization, 16 June 1969-15 June 1970, Part One, Chapter IV O.

A/8013. Report of Commissioner-General of UNRWA (for period 1 July 1969-30 June 1970).

A/8040. Letter of 13 August 1970 from Secretary-General (transmitting statement by Commissioner-General of UNRWA on its financial situation).

A/8077. Joint appeal of 24 September 1970 by President of General Assembly and Secretary-General.

A/8084 and Add.1. Notes by Secretary-General of 2 October and 6 November 1970 (transmitting UNRWA reports on operations in Jordan).

A/SPC/140. Letter of 12 November 1970 from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (requesting hearing for "Palestine Arab delegation").

A/SPC/141. Letter of 23 November 1970 from Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Cuba, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, People's Republic of Congo, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, Yemen and Yugoslavia, later joined by Senegal (requesting hearing for "delegation of Palestine Liberation Organization").

A/SPC/L.200. Norway: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 4 December 1970, meeting 742, by 85 votes to 0, with 9 abstentions.
A/8204. Report of Special Political Committee (part I).

RESOLUTION 2656(xxv), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8204, adopted without vote by Assembly on 7 December 1970, meeting 1918.

The General Assembly,

Having considered the 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 1969 to 30 June 1970,

Noting with grave concern the acute financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and its serious implications for the future work of the Agency,

Bearing in mind the appeal made by the Secretary-General on 2 December 1970 at the 740th meeting of the Special Political Committee as well as the appeal made by the Chairman of that Committee on 25 November 1970 at the 733rd meeting of the Committee, and taking into account the suggestions made in the course of the debate concerning possible means of securing additional income,

1. Decides to establish a Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, consisting of nine Member States, to study all aspects of the financing of the Agency;

2. Requests the President of the General Assembly, in consultation with the Secretary-General, to designate the Member States which will compose the Working Group;

3. Requests the Working Group, in consultation with the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to present an interim report to the General Assembly, not later than 14 December 1970, containing its recommendations on possible measures to be taken to prevent a reduction of the Agency's services in 1971;

4. Also requests the Working Group, in the interval between the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth sessions of the General Assembly, to assist, as appropriate, the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East in reaching solutions to the problems posed by the Agency's financial crisis;

5. Further requests the Working Group, in consultation with the Secretary-General, the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and the specialized agencies, to present a comprehensive report on all aspects of the financing of the Agency to the General Assembly at its twenty-sixth session.

A/8264. Report of 14 December 1970 of Working Group on Financing of UNRWA. A/8264, para. 11. Draft resolution recommended by Working Group for adoption by General Assembly.

RESOLUTION 2728(xxv), as proposed by Working Group on Financing of UNRWA, A/8264, adopted without vote by Assembly on 15 December 1970, meeting 1931.

The General Assembly,

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,

Recalling its grave concern about the acute financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and its serious implications for the future work of the Agency,

Bearing in mind the need to take all possible measures to prevent a reduction of the services being provided to the Palestine refugees by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,

Taking into account the urgency to undertake such action,

1. Approves the report of the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East;

2. Endorses the recommendations combined in paragraph 10 of the report of the Working Group and urges the full co-operation of all concerned for their implementation;

3. Requests the Working Group to continue its work in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2656(XXV) of 7 December 1970 and the present resolution;

4. Renews its appeal to all Governments to join in a collective effort to solve the financial crisis of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

A/SPC/L.196. United States: draft resolution, approved by Special Political Committee on 4 December 1970, meeting 743, by 91 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.

A/8204/Add.1. Report of Special Political Committee (part II), draft resolution A.

RESOLUTION 2672 A (xxv), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8204/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 8 December 1970, meeting 1921, by 111 votes to 2, with 1 abstention.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 194(III) of 11 December 1948, 302(IV) of 8 December 1949, 393(V) and 394(V) of 2 and 14 December 1950, 512(VI) and 513(VI) of 26 January 1952, 614(VII) of 6 November 1952, 720(VIII) of 27 November 1953, 818(IX) of 4 December 1954, 916(X) of 3 December 1955, 1018(XI) of 28 February 1957, 1191(XII) of 12 December 1957, 1315(XIII) of 12 December 1958, 1456(XIV) of 9 December 1959, 1604(XV) of 21 April 1961, 1725(XVI) of 20 December 1961, 1856 (XVII) of 20 December 1962, 1912(XVIII) of 3 December 1963, 2002(XIX) of 10 February 1965, 2052(XX) of 15 December 1965, 2154(XXI) of 17 November 1966, 2341(XXII) of 19 December 1967, 2452(XXIII) of 19 December 1968 and 2535 A (XXIV) of 10 December 1969,

Noting 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 1969 to 30 June 1970,

1. Notes with deep regret that repatriation or compensation of the refugees as provided for in paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194(III) has not been effected, that no substantial progress has been made in the programme endorsed in paragraph 2 of Assembly 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 thanks to the Commissioner-General and 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;

3. Directs the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to continue his efforts in taking such measures, including rectification of the relief rolls, as to assure, in co-operation with the Governments concerned, the most equitable distribution of relief based on need;

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;

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 fall 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.

A/SPC/L.197. Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, Yugoslavia: draft resolution, orally co-sponsored by Iran, approved by Special Political Committee on 4 December 1970, meeting 743, by roll-call vote of 97 to 0, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen,* People's Republic of Congo, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Malawi, Nicaragua, Portugal.

* On 30 November 1970, Southern Yemen informed the United Nations that it had changed its name to the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.

A/8204/Add.1. Report of Special Political Committee (part II), draft resolution B.

RESOLUTION 2672 B (xxv), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8204/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 8 December 1970, meeting 1921, by 114 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions.

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 and 2535 C(XXIV) of 10 December 1969,

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 1969 to 30 June 1970,

Bearing in mind the letter dated 13 August 1970 from the Secretary-General addressed to States Members of the United Nations or members of specialized agencies,

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) and 2535 C (XXIV);

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.198. Afghanistan, Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Somalia: draft resolution, orally co-sponsored by Mali, approved by Special Political Committee on 4 December 1970, meeting 743, by roll-call vote of 46 to 19, with 37 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Israel, Italy, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Rwanda, United States, Uruguay.

Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dahomey, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Ghana, Iceland, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, People's Republic of Congo, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

A/L.618. Dominican Republic: motion (that decision on draft resolution C recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8204/Add.1, should be made by two-thirds majority vote).

A/L.619. Somalia: motion (that decision on draft resolution C recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8204/Add.1, should be made by simple majority vote), adopted by Assembly on 8 December 1970, meeting 1921, by roll-call vote of 49 to 44, with 27 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Ceylon, Chile, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, People's Republic of Congo, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Botswana, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dahomey, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Rwanda, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.

Abstaining: Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, Italy, Kenya, Khmer Republic,* Laos, Mauritius, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Swaziland, Thailand, Upper Volta, Venezuela.
* On 28 December 1970, Cambodia informed the Secretary-General that on 7 October 1970 it had changed its name to the Khmer Republic.

A/8204/Add.1. Report of Special Political Committee (part II), draft resolution C.

RESOLUTION 2672 c (xxv), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8204/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 8 December 1970, meeting 1921, by roll-call vote of 47 to 22, with 50 abstentions:

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

Against: Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gabon, Guatemala, Israel, Italy, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Rwanda, United States, Uruguay.

Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dahomey, Denmark, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Laos, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, United Kingdom, Upper Volta, Venezuela.

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,

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,

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. 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.199. Afghanistan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Somalia, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

A/SPC/L.199/Rev.1. Afghanistan. Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Somalia, Yugoslavia: revised draft resolution, co-sponsored orally by India, approved by Special Political Committee on 4 December 1970, meeting 743, by roll-call vote of 83 to 7, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, People's Republic of Congo, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Israel, Nicaragua, Panama.

Abstaining: Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, Costa Rica, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, Portugal, Togo, Uruguay.

A/8204/Add.1. Report of Special Political Committee (part II), draft resolution D.

RESOLUTION 2672 D(xxv), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/8204/Add.1, adopted by Assembly on 8 December 1970, meeting 1921, by recorded vote of 93 to 5, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, People's Republic of Congo, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Costa Rica, Guatemala, Israel, Nicaragua, Panama.

Abstaining: Barbados, Botswana, Brazil, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, El Salvador, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Nepal, Peru, Portugal, Togo, Uruguay.

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, 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, and 2535 B (XXIV) of 10 December 1969,

Gravely concerned about the plight of the displaced persons,

Convinced that the plight of the displaced persons could best 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 persons,

1. Considers that the plight of the displaced persons continues since they have not been able to return to their homes and camps;

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

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





END NOTES


1/As noted in the report of the Commissioner-General of UNRWA for the period of 1 July 1969-30 June 1970, the term "refugees," "displaced refugees" or "newly displaced refugees" refers to those persons who were registered with UNRWA prior to the June 1967 hostilities; the term "displaced persons" or "other displaced persons" refers to those who were displaced after the outbreak of the June 1967 hostilities, but who were not registered with UNRWA.
2/See Y.U.N., 1968, p. 294, text of resolution 2452 A (XXIII).

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

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

5/Ibid.

6/See footnote 3.

7/Ibid.

8/See Y.U.N., 1951, pp. 315-16, text of resolution 513(VI).

9/See footnote 3.

10/See Y.U.N., 1969, pp. 241-42, text of resolution 2535 B (XXIV).

11/See footnote 4.










Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter