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

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



Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS

UNITED
NATIONS
S

        Security Council
S/PV.1323
18 November 1966

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1323
1
Adoption of the agenda
1
The Palestine question:

Letter dated 15 November 1966 from the Permanent
Representative of Jordan to the United Nations
Addressed to the President of the Security Council
(S/7587)
1

THIRTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THIRD MEETING

Held in New York, on Friday 18 November 1966, at 3 p.m.

President: Mr. Arthur J. GOLDBERG
(United States of America)


Present: The representatives of the following States: Argentina, Bulgaria, China, France, Japan, Jordan, Mali, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay.
Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1323)

1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. The Palestine question:
Letter dated 15 November 1966 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/7587).
Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.
The Palestine question

Letter dated 15 November 1966 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/7587).

1. The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the decision taken previously at the 1320th meeting and with the consent of the Council, I shall invite the representative of Israel to take a place at the Council table.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. Comay (Israel) took a place at the Council table.

2. The PRESIDENT: The Council will now continue its consideration of the question on its agenda.

3. Mr. DE BEUS (Netherlands): Only two weeks ago we all left this room with a feeling of uneasiness and anxiety over the situation in the Middle East. Today we are met again to consider a new and more serious outburst of violence in that same region, as was in fact to be expected at the time. On one of the last days of our previous debate my delegation said:

“...we hear... ominous reports that there is mounting pressure in Israel for military retaliations. Several speakers in the Council”-and I was particularly referring on that occasion to the representative of Jordan, my friend Ambassador El-Farra-“have voiced serious concern about this danger, and my delegation shares this concern.” [1316th meeting, para.63.]

4. A fair and balanced resolution at the end of our last debate, supported by nearly all the members of the Council, and in particular by the great Powers, could have exercised a restraining influence on all trigger-happy elements in the Middle East. As it was, however, the lack of decisive action by the organ vested with the primary responsibility for peace and security in the world, because of a veto in the Council, constituted rather an inducement to those elements which believe that the use of force can further their cause. The fear of military retaliation by Israel, expressed in our last debate by several delegations, including my own, has unfortunately materialized, and so the Council had been convened on this subject for the third time in four months, this time at the request of the representative of Jordan.

5. The attack by Israel forces on the territory of Jordan on Sunday, 13 November 1966, of which Jordan complains, has not been denied by the Israel representative and it has been fully substantiated by a preliminary report which the Secretary-General gave us two days ago {1320th meeting]. The situation in this respect is therefore similar to, although somewhat worse than, the one which the Council faced last July, when Israel forces likewise attacked a neighboring State and openly admitted that action. Dealing with that situation, my delegation stated in this Council on 1 August that:

“The Government of the Netherlands ...disapproves of any action that is taken or tolerated by any of the parties concerned in contravention of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of the General Armistice Agreement to which both parties have subscribed.” [1293rd meeting, para.9.]

6. My delegation deeply deplores this new more violent attack by Israel, as it did previous attacks, and we shall continue to do so because we are convinced that escalation of violence will never bring a solution for the area.

7. As an explanation for its armed intervention, the Israel Government has referred to a series of acts of sabotage preceding the attack, culminating in the blowing up of an army vehicle by a land mine about two kilometers from the Israel-Jordan border which killed three Israelis and wounded six others.

8. During our recent debate my delegation make it abundantly clear that, in our opinion, an end should be put to these acts of violence. However, on 17 October 1966, my delegation also emphasized that “retaliation can never be the answer to provocation” [1308th meeting, para. 53].

9. During that debate, several delegations welcomed the fact that Israel at that time had not reverted to military retaliation as an answer to provocation, but had addressed itself to the Security Council instead. For the same reason, we wish today to express our appreciation to Jordan for bringing its complaint to the Council instead of reverting to armed force. In no circumstances can a party be justified in trying to take the law into its own hands, because violence inevitably engenders greater violence. For that very reason, the preceding acts of violence which had taken place over a long period of time on Israel territory were in themselves inexcusable and likely to provoke further violence. But even those acts of sabotage can in no way justify a military reprisal of such excessive vehemence as the one to which Israel reverted, an attack carried out in considerable strength with the support of tanks, armored cars and aircraft, resulting in at least twenty dead and many wounded, and in the destruction of numerous homes. Such a military reprisal is contrary to the obligations of the Charter of the United Nations and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan 1/ and Israel must therefore be held to be at fault.

10. This attack is all the more regrettable because it was directed against civilian elements and civilian settlements in a country which itself has adhered to its international obligations and which, for its part, has always disavowed and discouraged the acts of terrorist groups, for which it cannot therefore be held responsible.

11. For all those reasons, my delegation deplores the action taken and the loss of life resulting from it. It must urge Israel to adhere strictly to its obligations under the Charter and under the General Armistice Agreement, just as it has previously urged both sides to do their utmost to prevent recurrence of acts of violence on each side of the border or demarcation lines. The present state of affairs remains fraught with danger, and the recent raid of Israel, serious as it was, is unfortunately by no means the limit of the possible hostilities. Any further action might well bring about a full-scale war in the Middle East.

12. My delegation wishes once again to appeal to all the Governments in the are to act in self-restraint and moderation. Military action can never solve the situation, nor can it bring peace. The only effective remedy is for all parties strictly to respect their obligations under the Charter and under the General Armistice Agreement, obligations which were freely entered into.

13. The Council’s main concern now should be to prevent repetition in the future of such military actions as well as other acts of violence.

14. My delegation will be prepared to support any resolution likely to achieve that aim. If strengthening the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization along certain sections of the border could contribute to that purpose the Council should, we believe, seriously consider such a possibility. My delegation supports in this respect the suggestion made yesterday by the representative of Argentina. At any rate, the Council must find a way of stopping the continuation and the escalation of violence in the Middle East.

15. Mr. CHANG (China): My delegation strongly deplores the retaliatory raid carried out by the Government of Israel on 13 November against the Jordanian villages south of Hebron.

16. This is not, of course, the first time that the Council has been called upon to deal with a case of this nature. Two years ago, ironically also on 13 November, Syria complained that Israel aircraft had attacked its territory in the region of Tel-El-Qadi. In July of this year, Syria lodged a similar complaint against Israel. On both occasions my delegation, while deploring the acts of violence committed by terrorist bands in the territory of Israel, voiced its strong disapproval of the policy of reprisal adopted by the Israel authorities. We believed them, as we believe now, that such unilateral exercise of force must be at all times regarded as reprehensible and contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the United Nations Charter.

17. This latest retaliatory raid surpassed the two previous ones both in gravity and in magnitude. It was an operation of considerable size, supported by heavy artillery and aircraft. There was heavy loss of life and property. This action constituted a violation of the Charter and of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement.

18. In his letter of 12 November to the President of the Council [S/7584], the representative of Israel referred to a mining incident which caused loss of life and property in Israel. He accused the Government of Jordan of having failed to prevent terrorist incursions into Israel from Jordanian territory. By implication, however, he did not really believe that the terrorist bands were of Jordanian origin. That being so, the Israel attack was obviously directed at the wrong party, a party which has endeavored to co-operate with the United Nations machinery in the area and observe its obligations under the General Armistice Agreement. The Israel action, therefore, is all the more deplorable.

19. At the present time I think the Council is bound to find means to prevent the recurrence of such acts of violence. This calls for appropriate and constructive action not only for the restoration of peace and quiet along the Israel-Jordan border but also for the reduction of tension in the entire Middle East.

20. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of Israel.

21. Mr. COMAY (Israel): At the first meeting of the Council on the present complaint last Wednesday morning [1320th meeting] my delegation placed the events of 13 November last in the context of the grave security problem with which Israel is confronted by neighboring Arab States. In reply to that, the representative of Jordan that afternoon [1321st meeting] contended that what I had explained to the Council was irrelevant and an attempt to divert the attention of the Council from the complaint before it. And in his catalogue of irrelevancies, in what he called fabrications, he included the Armistice Agreement, the sabotage and mine-laying attacks which led up to the Israel action, and other matters. He then addressed himself to the question: what was the real issue before the Council, and what was pertinent to that issue? That is a proper and legitimate question and I, too, shall address myself to it.

22. One fact is not in dispute in these proceedings. It is the fact that on a certain hour of a certain day Israel troops carried out an action across the Jordan border. There is no dispute about that, because my Government on its own volition made the fact public. It did not do so boastfully, as has been alleged, but because we are a democratic country, and the Government is obliged to account to the people for actions taken on their behalf.

23. The representative of Jordan has asked the Council, in effect, to look upon this action in a complete void, unrelated to anything which preceded it, and out of the context of the security problem of Israel. Then, when the Israel Government asked that its representative be invited to take a seat here, in order that he should place before the Council the considerations and problems which prompted the action of 13 November, it is maintained that those considerations and problems are not relevant to the complaint on the agenda. This is an untenable proposition. It would certainly not tenable in a court of law, and even less so in an organ which is not a court of law but a body concerned with maintaining peace and security, and therefore required to take into account all the factors which may affect peace and security in a given situation.

24. At any rate, a number of members of the Council who have so far spoken in the debate have been unwilling to shut their eyes to provocation, even if they have not condoned the Israel reaction to that provocation. So, for instance, Lord Caradon, speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom, spoke about a tragedy which was: “...one further symptom of the tense and deterioration situation which now prevails on the borders between Israel and certain of its Arab neighbors-a situation which can be restored, we believe, only by strict observance of the obligations under the General Armistice Agreements” [1320th meeting, para.78].

25. You, Mr. President, speaking as the representative of the United States, stated that “it ...must be the function of this Council to assure conditions of peace and stability in the area” [Ibid., para. 88]. You further stated in a later passage that:

“... violence breeds violence, and that it must be opposed in the Middle East regardless of the direction from which it comes. That is our view of how this Council, if it is faithful to the Charter, and the General Armistice Agreements must act on complaints that come before it. The Council, and in particular its permanent members, cannot contribute effectively to peace in the Middle East unless the entire context is taken into account and all parties to the General Armistice Agreements are required by this Council to adhere to their legal obligations to prevent violence across the frontiers.” [Ibid., para. 99]

26. Our colleague the Ambassador of France observed that the act of the Government of Israel had been incited by “incidents which, while not of comparable gravity, should not be underestimated” [1321st meeting, para. 4].

27. The representative of Argentina referred to the increasing political and military tension which exists in the region, and he urged that the Council should “do its utmost to end this series of incidents, which are gravely disturbing peace in the Middle East” [1322nd meeting, para. 2]. He continues that “...as the organ primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security, [the Council] must not confine itself to condemning ...” but should try “...to adopt whatever measures or recommendations are needed to secure peace in the area” [ibid., para. 6].

28. So, too, the representative of Japan said that “we do not overlook the terrorist incident that preceded this Israel military action ...” and he deeply regretted “that, just two weeks ago, the Council was unable to take effective action to reduce the long-standing tension in the area. The action proposed at that time, in our view, might have provided a good basis for solutions in the future” [ibid., paras. 13 and 14].

29. The representative of New Zealand, while stating that the Israel action could not be condoned, also expressed understanding for “...the frustrations to which continued incidents, including loss of life through terrorist activity across Israel’s borders, undoubtedly give rise in Israel”, and also “the nature of the strategic quandary to which the representative of Israel has referred in his opening statement” [ibid., para. 19].

30. He pointed out that the series of sabotage incidents in Israel’s territory “must inevitably be a source of strain and tension in relations between Israel and those of its neighbors from which infiltrators come” [ibid., para. 21]. He expressed the view that the Council “will not have dealt seriously with the immediate cause of the present violent situation as long as it does not address itself effectively to this problem” [ibid.].

31. This afternoon the representative of the Netherlands also said that an end should be put to these acts of violence, that all parties must respect obligations under the Charter and the Armistice Agreements and that steps should be taken to prevent military attacks as well as other acts of violence.

32. Lastly, the representative of China, who has just spoken, also referred to constructive action to prevent acts of violence and to the reduction of tension in the area.

33. While noting, therefore, that members of the Council have disapproved of the Israel action, I would also note that most of the Council members have taken account of surrounding circumstances and have not been prepared to regard them as irrelevant. That appears to my delegation to be a logical and necessary view, and we should expect it to be reflected in any draft resolution which may be presented.

34. It was suggested by on of the previous speakers in this debate that the Israel action was outside the norms of international law and the Charter, which allowed the use of force only in cases of legitimate self-defense or in fulfillment of collective measures called for by the United Nations. He referred also to the obligatory norms of coexistence among States. The application of general legal principles to a particular type of situation has become a complex and difficult one.

35. In 1945 the framers of the Charter had, above all, in mind the Second World War from which they were emerging and which had been waged by gigantic armies pitted against each other in mortal combat. They were perhaps less conscious then of the kind of indirect aggression and undeclared guerrilla wars which have occurred in various parts of the world since then and which were hard to fit into the precise formulation of international norms. Is the principle of national self-defense to be regarded as suspended in such situations?

36. At the twentieth session there was an effort by the General Assembly to establish international norms for these categories of unofficial belligerents as well, and we all supported the landmark resolution on the inadmissibility of intervention in domestic affairs of States and the protection of their independence and sovereignty. As Council members know, operative paragraph 2 of resolution 2131 (XX) reads in part:

“...no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent over-throw of ...another State ...”.

That injunction indeed corresponds with the provisions of the Armistice Agreements signed in 1949 between Israel and the neighboring Arabs States. What happens when these international norms are violated in relation to a particular State? Is that State precluded from reacting or defending itself? Must it resign itself helplessly to the penetration of its borders and the murder of its citizens from the territory of neighboring States simply because the aggression is not committed in the name of a Government and through its regular forces?

37. This problem was very well put by the representative of New Zealand in his intervention to the General Assembly in the general debate on 18 October, and I would take the liberty of quoting a key passage in it:

“Increasingly it must be noted, a practice of injury by stealth is being followed. This tendency is not confined either to one continent or region or to one kind of power struggle or ideological conflict. Those so injured, if they cannot get redress here, will tend to reply as best they can. It must be said frankly, too, that this tendency favors the clandestine, the attack launched but publicly denied; and those nations whose systems of government do not easily lend themselves to such surreptitious implementation of policy may find themselves condemned if they frankly acknowledge their own inevitable response. This sort of dual standard, of which there are signs already, is scarcely a prescription for international peace; it is, rather, a prescription for the comity of nations to become, in practice, the comity of hard knocks, a comity of reprisals.” 2/

38. This question goes to the heart of the Israel-Arab border situation. It has been reflected in the most recent debates on that situation, which took place in July and August and again in October and November and have not been resumed for a third time in the past few months. Surely the time has come for the Council to come to grips with the real underlying problems. It cannot bring those problems under control simply by expressing disapproval of an Israel reaction and ignoring all the factors of tension and insecurity which revolve around that action and explain it.

39. In out opening statement last Wednesday [1320th meeting] my delegation put on record what some of those factors of tension were. They include the rejection of Israel’s political independence and territorial integrity, open military preparations against Israel and the organization and operation of so-called liberation armies and guerrilla groups. Nothing will be settled which such policies and activities continue, and the situation may deteriorate even further. This, as my delegation sees it, is now the immediate challenge to the Security Council in any effort to bring matters under control. The Council must, we submit, see the whole picture and deal with it as a whole. It must insist, among other things, on a halt to threats and incitement and a halt to terrorist raids across the border and not merely focus its attention on a reaction to those raids.

40. Above all, the Council must insist on the strict fulfillment by all the Governments concerned of the obligations under the Armistice Agreements. In this context of Armistice obligations, my delegation must register its dissent from the view which has been expressed here that the complainant in these proceedings, the Jordan Government, has a clear record of compliance with the Armistice Agreements and of co-operation with the United Nations. That, unfortunately, is no the case. I would deal with this point not only to keep the record straight but because it is part of the over-all picture in which the Israel-Jordan border difficulties exist.

41. Let us take article I of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan. In paragraph 2 it rules out even the threat of aggressive action by one party against the people or the armed forces of the other. Paragraph 3 of that article says that the right of each party to its security and freedom from fear of attack by the armed forces of the other shall be fully respected. Paragraph 4 deals with the establishment of an armistice as an indispensable step towards the liquidation of armed conflict and the restoration of peace.

42. In a complaint to the Security Council on 5 September 1957 [S/3883], the representative of Israel drew attention to the fact that Jordan was in standing violation of the fundamental principles of the Armistice Agreement outlined in article I. At the 788th meeting of the Council the representative of Israel referred more specifically to this non-compliance “with intimidation, and the promotion of peace which are included in article I of the Agreement” [788th meeting, para. 17]. Not only the Government of Jordan but all the Arab Governments that signed Armistice Agreements with Israel in 1949 are in standing violation of those fundamental principles of article I, which are the keystones of the whole armistice structure.

43. These provisions are so fundamental that, but article XII, the parties to the Armistice Agreement may at any time, by mutual consent, revise or revoke any of its provisions, but not those in article I and article III, to which I shall refer shortly. The parties cannot, even by mutual consent, discharge themselves of those obligations.

44. We have heard a good deal in the Council about invoking the armistice machinery. In 1955 the former Security-General, Mr. Hammarskjold, submitted a report to the Security Council in which he pointed out that the armistice machinery failed to cover breaches of the basic obligations of the Armistice Agreements. Mr. Hammarskjold wrote in his report to the Security Council of 9 May 1956:

“A further weakness is that no procedure has been established for the handling of conflicts covered by the general clauses in the Armistice Agreements. For example, the first article of the several Agreements establishes a right to security and freedom from fear of attack... For cases of this kind which the party may not wish to bring to the Security Council, there is at present no such possibility available within the framework of the armistice regime as applied.” [S/3596, para. 65.]

45. In a further report to the Security Council on 31 October 1957, which relates to the Israel complaint, the Acting Chief of Staff of the time of UNTSO stated candidly of that organization:

“... it can do little to secure the implementation of article I. The Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commissions have generally considered that this article falls outside the competence of the Commission concerned to interpret and apply.” [S/3913, para. 16.]

46. We therefore have the strange anomaly that those provisions in the Armistice Agreements which are designed to ensure the right to security, freedom from fear of attack, freedom from threat and the promotion of permanent peace are regarded by the armistice machinery as outside its scope and its competence.

47. It is repeated here that all the Arab Governments concerned, including the Government of Jordan, have failed consistently to respect the basic provisions without which the armistice regime is meaningless.

48. The Israel complaint of 1957, which was debated by the Council and which I referred, was specifically a complaint against Jordan.

49. As regards article III, the Council is very familiar with the counterpart of this article in the Israel-Syria General Armistice Agreement; 3/ the two articles are the same. Paragraph 2 of that article prohibits the commission of any warlike or hostile act by, among others, para-military or non-regular forces against civilians in territory under the control of the other party. Paragraph 3 states:

“No warlike act or act of hostility shall be conducted from Territory controlled by one of the Parties to this Agreement against the other Party ... .”

50 Every time a terrorist or a saboteur crosses the Jordan border into Israel it is an automatic violation of article III of the Armistice Agreement, and Jordan is responsible.

51. My Government has never released the Government of Jordan from responsibility for these violations, even if we do not believe that that Government deliberately organizes, foments or encourages these raids. It is for the Government of Jordan to show that it is taking adequate and effective measures to prevent such armed incursions, which have become increasingly frequent and dangerous. At the same time, the Jordan Government has failed to discharge its responsibility for preventing them and, therefore, it cannot be said to have a clean record as far as article III is concerned. This applies also to article IV, which prohibits crossing by civilians; and in fact there have been a number of condemnations of Jordan by the Mixed Armistice Commission for its failure to carry out its obligations under those articles.

52. There is also an article VIII of which Jordan remains in standing violation. That article sets up a Special Committee to work out “agreed plans and arrangements for such matters as either Party may submit to it, which, in any case, shall include the following, on which agreement in principle already exists”. The matters on which agreement already exists included, in the article, free movement of traffic on vital roads, including the Bethlehem and Latrun-Jerusalem roads; resumption of the normal functioning of the cultural and humanitarian institutions on Mount Scopus and free access thereto; free access to the Holy Places most sacred to the Jewish religion, such as the Wailing Wall in the Old City, and the use of the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. On all these matters Jordan remains in default of article VIII, and the Special Committee has long ceased to function because Jordan refused to co-operate with it.

53. The Acting Chief of Staff in his report in 1957 quotes Security Council resolution 89 (1950) of 17 November 1950 in which this Council expressed the hope that the Special Committee, under article VIII, would proceed expeditiously to carry out its functions. Seven years later the Acting Chief of Staff reported that the Security Council’s hope had not been fulfilled.

54. And what about article XII? Jordan is in clear violation of article XII of the Armistice Agreement, and it is a great pity that it is so. By that article, either of the parties “may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference ...for the purpose of reviewing” the provisions of this Agreement and its implementation, and participation in such conference “shall be obligatory upon the Parties”. The Government of Israel officially requested such a conference in 1953, and in its resolution 101 (1953) of 24 November 1953 the Security Council asked the Chief of Staff to make recommendations regarding compliance with the General Armistice Agreements, “taking into account any agreement reached in pursuance of the request by the Government of Israel for the convocation of a conference under article XII”. No agreement was reached because no conference took place. No conference took place because the Government of Jordan refused to attend it, although such attendance was mandatory under the Armistice Agreement. Such a conference would have been and still could be a very valuable means of revising and strengthening the Armistice Agreement in the light of the experience gained from it. In fact, that was the whole object of inserting this paragraph in the original agreement and making attendance compulsory at the request of either party.

55. It will no doubt be suggested by the representative of Jordan that my delegation is referring to these various aspects of the Armistice Agreement and to Jordan’s default under them in order to confuse the issue presently before the Council. That is not so. These provisions are an integral part of the issue before the Council if it seen in its proper context and perspective.

56. I should like to reserve the right of my delegation to intervene again in the debate, if that should appear necessary, including the right to make any observations that may be called for by the Secretary-General’s report when that becomes available.

57. The PRESIDENT: The representative of Jordan has asked to speak and I now call on him.

58. Mr. EL-FARRA (Jordan): I have listened very carefully to the statement just made by Mr. Comay. I can safely divide his statement into two parts. The first part relates to the question now under consideration. The second part relates to all aspects of the question of Palestine. As I have said before, that second part has not place in our deliberations now. I could have asked you, Mr. President, in your wisdom, to stop Mr. Comay from discussing an irrelevant issue, but I deliberately let Mr. Comay take all the time he wished, and speak on any question he wished to mention, because if this exposes anything, it shows the art of diversion.

59. What is before the Council is a clear act of aggression. What the Council is expected to decide-and I hope that it will decide-is whether or not there is any link whatsoever between this act of aggression and any other act committed by the Government of Jordan. So far, out of all the representatives who have spoken-and I hope that it will be the same at our next meeting-I have not heard a single statement implicating the Government of Jordan in the commission of any act which can be linked with the crime committed by the authorities of Mr. Comay. That being the case, there is but one single issue before the Council; a crime committed deliberately, intentionally, in cold blood, without any provocation of any kind on the part of the Government of Jordan.

60. I can answer every single issue raised by Mr. Comay. But these questions are not new. They were raised last month by Mr. Comay in this Council. They were raised last week by Mr. Comay in the Special Political Committee. They were raised yesterday by Mr. Comay in this Council. But in spite of the tempting invitation of Mr. Comay, I shall not indulge in a dialogue which is irrelevant to the question, irrelevant to the crime which forms the subject of a complaint by Jordan to the Security Council. I refuse to speak on any issue which is not before the Council. I said that yesterday; I say it again today.

61. But as to the first part, relating to the complaint, I do intend to make clear statement exposing all the facts and all the distortions, whether those which he imputed to the Secretariat or those he imputed to Jordan, or those which have been created and have no foundation anywhere in the records of the Mixed Armistice Commission or the Security Council. At our meeting on Monday, 21 November, with your indulgence, Mr. President, I shall have sufficient time to refer to all these issues.

62. But there is one point that it is important for this Council to ponder. I keep hearing references to a mine explosion having led to the committing of this crime by Israel, in which one brigade crossed the border, razed a village, displaced 1,000 people, destroyed 125 homes, demolished part of a mosque, a house of worship, and killed innocent civilians. A warlike act was committed and Mr. Comay calls it local action committed for defensive purposes. After Israel used all kinds of offensive weapons, Mr. Comay comes here and calls this act a defensive act.

63. I wish to refer to a case with which I am sure you are familiar, Mr. President, I have in mind Korea. I should like to remind the Council of something which happened recently and which concerned the United States. The United States is a great Power, a permanent member of the Security Council. It has part of its army with the United Nations forces in Korea. The other day an incident occurred-I do not know exactly what the facts were, but I do know that six United States soldiers were killed. Did the United States send its army from the south to cross the 38th parallel and kill, destroy and demolish? Did the United States send its jet aircraft to the north in so-called retaliation, in a so-called act of reprisal, in a so-called answer to provocation? This is a case in point. The United States did not take the law into its own hands. The place to bring up any violation, if a violation has occurred, is the Security Council.

64 Mr. Comay cannot take the law into his own hands and then say that because there was a mine explosion, his country committed an act of war, and that we, the Security Council, must go ahead and discuss every issue relating to Palestine in order to cover up the crime. I am sure that the Security Council is well aware of its responsibilities and well aware of what is before the Council.

65. I also hear Mr. Comay refer to a statement of the representative of the United States that “violence breed violence”. That phrase was used on Sunday in a statement made here two days ago at the 1320th meeting by the United States representative. We condemn violence, let us see where the violence comes from. If we cannot get a decision from the Security Council regarding this act of war that was committed, on the grounds that so-called violence-in which Jordan is not implicated-breeds violence and therefore there can be no decision, no condemnation, no application of Chapter VII of the Charter, that may amount to an invitation; that may mean that retaliation should breed retaliation. If the theory is going to be that violence, which no one has proved against Jordan, breeds violence, which we have proved against Israel; and if we get no adequate decision invoking Chapter VII sanctions, my only understanding of the interpretation of “violence breeds violence” will be that retaliation breeds retaliation. That would be sad and most unfortunate. I am sure that the Council does not want that to happen.

66. Those where the few observations I wished to make. I reserve my right to speak again on Monday to answer other points.

67. The PRESIDENT: I have no other speakers on my list. It is the desire of the members of the Council that we should adjourn this meeting in order to permit time for further consultations regarding the appropriate disposition of this urgent item on out agenda. I am advised that these consultations will continue throughout the weekend. In the meantime, the Council will welcome a written report from the Secretary-General which, I am given to understand, will be available tomorrow. The next meeting of the Council will be held on Monday, 21 November 1966, at 11 a.m.
The meeting rose at 4.30 p.m.


Footnote

1/ See Official Records of the Security Council, Fourth Year, Special Supplement No. 1.

2/ See Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-first Session, Plenary Meetings, 1447th meeting, para. 103.

3/ See Official Records of the Security Council, Fourth Year, Special Supplement No.2.



Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter