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

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

See also: UN DPI Multimedia (Ref: 024-42, 44-46)
Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS


        Security Council
20 May 1968


1425th MEETING: 20 MAY 1968

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1425/Rev.2)

Adoption of the agenda

The situation in the Middle East:
(a) Letter dated 25 April 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8560);
(b) Report of the Secretary-General under General Assembly resolution 2254 (ES-V) relating to Jerusalem (S/8146)




Held in New York on Monday, 20 May 1968, at 4.30 p.m.

President: Lord CARADON
(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

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

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1425/Rev.2)

1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. The situation in the Middle East:
(a) Letter dated 25 April 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8560);
(b) Report of the Secretary-General under General Assembly resolution 2254 (ES-V) relating to Jerusalem (S/8146).

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

The situation in the Middle East:
(a) Letter dated 25 April 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8560);
(b) Report of the Secretary-General under General Assem-bly resolution 2254 (ES-V) relating to Jerusalem (S/8146)

1. The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the decision previously taken by the Council, I shall now invite the representatives of Jordan and Israel to take places at the Council table in order to participate, without the right to vote, in the discussion.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. H. El-Farra (Jordan) and Mr. Y. Tekoah (Israel) took places at the Council table.

2. The PRESIDENT: The Council will now continue its consideration of the question before it.

3. I wish to apologize to the Council for the delay in calling the meeting to order this evening and to say that the time has been fully occupied by continuous consultations between ourselves. I very much regret that this delay has been necessary.

4. Before calling on the speaker on my list, I would draw attention to a draft resolution sponsored by Pakistan and Senegal and circulated this afternoon in document S/8590.

5. I now call on the representative of Pakistan.

6. Mr. SHAHI (Pakistan): During the present debate on the situation in Jerusalem which began with our 1421st meeting, the Council has heard comprehensive statements from the parties. Mindful of the appeal which you made, Mr. President, at both the 1423rd and 1424th meetings for bringing the debate urgently to a conclusion, we feel the time has arrived to place a specific proposal before the Council. Accordingly, on behalf of the delegation of Senegal and my own, I have the honor to introduce a draft resolution, the text of which is set forth in document S/8590. It is not necessary for me to read the text. I have been given to understand that in the text distributed in French some changes are needed to make it reflect more accurately the provisions of the English text. I hope that the necessary corrections will be made.

7. It must be mentioned here that the text in document S/8590 has not been authored only by the two co-sponsors. It is the product of prolonged and careful consultations among the seven Asian, African and Latin American delegations, during which, I am happy to say, every delegation without exception made important contribu-tions to it.

8. I should like to make it clear that the draft resolution before us does not in any way embody a decision of the Council regarding the position of the city of Jerusalem. It is in essence a proposal of an interim nature. It seeks only to reaffirm the General Assembly resolutions on Jerusalem. Any variation from those resolutions is due either to events which have occurred since they were adopted or simply to the fact that this is a draft resolution for the Security Council and not for the General Assembly. Members of the Council will note that because of its limited scope it does not include a call for the withdrawal of Israel's forces and other personnel from the Holy City. Such a call would fall within the ambit of measures contemplated in another resolution which would pertain to the substantive aspects of the Middle East problem. The draft resolution seeks merely to preclude any measures or any actions which constitute attempts to change the status of the city.

9. It has been observed during this debate that the question of Jerusalem is linked with the whole Middle East question. No one could possibly dispute that proposition.

In the statement which my delegation made on 6 May at the 1422nd meeting of the Council we stated:

"The Holy City of Jerusalem is, of course, included in the territories from which, under the United Nations Charter and specifically under resolution 24,2 (1967), Israel has the inescapable obligation to withdraw." [1422nd meeting, para. 30.]

That, however, does not mean that no specific action is called for in respect of Jerusalem. A negative proposition of that kind would ignore three realities which are the cardinal and distinctive features of the situation existing in the Holy City.

10. First, Jerusalem has been the subject of two resolutions unanimously adopted by the General Assembly subsequent to the hostilities in the Middle East in June 1967. Those resolutions were supported by fourteen members of the Council. Resolution 2253 (ES-V) expressed concern at the situation prevailing in Jerusalem and considered that the measures taken by Israel to change the status of the city were invalid. On that basis, it called upon Israel to rescind all measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any action which would alter the status of Jerusalem. Resolution 2254 (ES-V) reiterated that call, deplored the failure of Israel to comply with it and requested the Secretary-General to report on its implemen-tation. Pursuant to this resolution, the Security Council received the Secretary-General's report [S/81461, based on the report of his personal representative. The Council has taken cognizance of that report. Neither the report nor Israel's attitude permits of any doubt about Israel's non-compliance with the General Assembly resolutions.

11. Secondly, while the Council has been rightly con-cerned with all acts which aggravate tension in the area, the measures taken by Israel in an attempt to change the status of Jerusalem are acts differing in character from breaches of the cease-fire, They pose a sharp and specific challenge to the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. This challenge has to be met, and the principle vindicated, if the prospect of the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is to be preserved. It is for this reason that a preambular paragraph in the draft resolution reaffirms that principle.

12. Thirdly, the unique and special importance of Jeru-salem to the international community has been recognized in various resolutions of the United Nations. Because of the association of the Holy City with three world religions, the situation in Jerusalem exercises the universal conscience in a quite special way.

13. For these three reasons, it is imperative that the Council pronounce itself clearly and unmistakably in order to prevent an unwarranted and forcible change in the status of Jerusalem and the continued violations of General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V).

14. The question may be asked: What are the legal measures and administrative actions which the draft resolu-tion seeks to invalidate and forbid? It invalidates and forbids those measures and actions which have already been taken or are contemplated by Israel in an attempt to change the status of Jerusalem. The draft resolution is very clear and speaks for itself. All of us know the limits of measures and actions that can be taken under military occupation. It is neither necessary nor relevant to spell them out here.

15. Israel does not disavow the intention to annex Jerusalem. Nothing could be clearer than the following statement in the report of the Secretary-General of 12 September 1967:

"In the numerous conversations which the Personal Representative had with Israel leaders, including the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it was made clear beyond any doubt that Israel was taking every step to place under its sovereignty those parts of the city which were not controlled by Israel before June 1967. The statutory bases for this had already been created, and the administrative authorities had started to apply Israel laws and regulations in those parts of the city.

“. . .

"The Israel authorities stated unequivocally that the process of integration was irreversible and not negotiable." [Ibid., paras. 33 and 35.]

16. On the basis of these undisputed facts, the g measures and administrative actions which the draft resolution forbids are those which, on Israel's own showing and according to its announced policy and purpose, are designed to incorporate Jerusalem in the territory of Israel or are based upon Israel's assertion of sovereignty over Jerusalem.

17. I would, in conclusion, point out that at a time when the Council has still reason to entertain the hope that efforts towards a political settlement of the Middle East problem may bear fruit, it is important that the Council do its best to prevent actions and occurrences which deepen and further complicate the conflict and render a settlement still more difficult. Israel's annexation of a territory which was not under its control before June 1967 and which, in the case of Jerusalem, affects the interests of the populations of a large number of countries is the outstanding act of this nature. The draft resolution which I have now introduced is designed solely to prevent a fresh and dangerous expansion of the Middle East conflict.

18. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The Security Council has now been considering for more than three weeks the item submitted by Jordan on the situation created in Jerusalem as the result of Israel's aggression against the neighboring., Arab States last June and its subsequent annexationist activities in the occupied Arab territories, including the' Arab sector of Jerusalem.

19. At first, with the general agreement of the Security Council, measures were taken to accelerate the consideration of this question; the discussion, however, is becoming excessively and unjustifiably protracted. The representatives of Pakistan and Senegal have now submitted a draft resolution on the item under discussion [S/8590]. The distinguished representative of Pakistan has introduced this draft resolution to the Security Council eloquently and in detail, and has explained its substance and contents. It contains the fundamental provisions required to prevent the further deterioration of the situation in Jerusalem - namely, the recognition of the illegality of Israel's activities in the occupied Arab sector of Jerusalem, the demand that the measures already taken by Israel to annex the Arab sector of the city should be rescinded, and the demand that Israel should not take such measures in the future.

20. The draft resolution reaffirms the principle that the acquisition of territory by means of conquest, occupation and aggression is inadmissible. This, as has been repeatedly pointed out in the Security Council, was one of the basic principles underlying the Council's, earlier resolution.

21. The Soviet delegation has had the opportunity of familiarizing itself with this draft, since you, Mr. President, were kind enough to communicate its contents to us several days ago. Of course, the draft contains some provisions which, in our delegation's view, it would be well to strengthen. We understand, however, that these formula-tions reflect the particular positions of individual States- Members of the Security Council which have taken part in the consultations and in the preparation of the draft resolution-and that this fact has made it possible for the representatives of Pakistan and Senegal to submit the draft in question. The Soviet delegation expresses its agreement with this draft resolution and will support it. Our delegation hopes that the Security Council will adopt this draft resolution on the question of the situation in Jerusalem and thereby make the provisions of the resolution binding upon Israel. If, however, the aggressor does not comply with this decision of the Security Council, the Security Council will be obliged to take such measures as will compel that compliance.

22. The PRESIDENT: I have no other speakers on my list for today. Consequently, following consultations with all members of the Security Council, I propose, if there is no, objection, to adjourn this meeting of the Council, to meet again at 3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

The meeting rose at 6.50 p.m.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter