YouSaid · the spoken record

EBAN

lines on the record: 663
first: 1949-09-24
most recent: 1973-09-24
sittings or episodes: 14
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“We listened carefully and sympathetically when the representative of Egypt outlined the achievements of the new Egyptian régime in passing a law of agrarian reform for the fair allocation of land. The leaders of my Government in Parliament did not hesitate to make public the expression of their profound sympathy with all efforts to cure the conditions of social and economic oppressions which have prevailed in the neighbouring Near East for time immemorial. I am certain that all liberal nations which heard about it welcomed the adoption of that law and will react with sympathetic enthusiasm if it is implemented. 111.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“It was plain to every balanced conscience that there is no value whatever in an international philosophy which would withhold from Israel in its infinitely smaller domain the privileges and opportunities with which the Arab people is so lavishly endowed? 109. The Arab States now aspire to expand further in other large areas. These problems are complex, and my delegation will express its views upon them on due occasion, but is there not some contradiction in the attitude of a national movement which begrudges to its own neighbour, in the most modest measure, those very rights and privileges which it claims for itself on so unlimited a scale? Is Arab nationalism the only interest which has to be satisfied in the affairs of his region? Is national freedom the prerogative of all peoples in our area or the monopoly of one? 110.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“From a people thus endowed with such a wealth of political good fortune and national opportunity, the United Nations may perhaps rightly expect a modification of these harsh attitudes and these vengeful demeanours. 108. Indeed, it was this huge expanse, of Arab sovereignty which stood before the eyes of the United Nations when the question of Israel’s right to statehood came before it. The nations of the world pronounced a simple truth. They said, “If it is right for the Arab peoples to possess their vast continent, it cannot be wrong for the Jewish people to enjoy the peaceful possession of its more -modest but precious home”.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The world rightly congratulates them upon that progress and wishes them well in the development of that opportunity. 107. The United Nations and the victorious coalitions of two world wars have contributed much by their blood and sacrifice to this great Arab bounty. International opinion throughout the United Nations has helped to liberate many of these Near Eastern countries from, foreign occupation. In one case, that of Libya, the United Nations has itself established Arab sovereignty in a new and great area — an act to which the Government of Israel, notwithstanding the general climate of our relations, gave wholehearted assistance through fine exercise of what proved to be its decisive vote.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Look at that vast expanse of sovereign opportunity extending throughout eight Arab States, covering a million and a half square miles, teeming with natural and mineral resources, full of latent and potential wealth; a great region in which the wonderful developments of the American continent in recent centuries could well be inaugurated by the united and devoted efforts of its people, if they were all dedicated to a vision of the future and not to rancours of the past. 106. Most of these sovereignties were recently established. There was not a single independent Arab State upon the surface of the inhabited globe thirty-five years ago. Rarely in history has any people attained a greater measure of its national aspirations in so short a time.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Here we are, some fifty-four nations full of imperfections and sin, in a world in which the Arab States stand out in solitary and immaculate virtue, full of righteous indignation at our shortcomings. Such is the picture presented by this most extraordinary agenda which the Arab States have prepared for-our political committees at this session. I have felt a deep undercurrent of desire amongst many delegations to see some balance of humility restored in the spirit and tone of these debates. For this attitude of grievance and denunciation is not justified by any objective reference to facts. 105. Has history in its broadest sweep, history In its general line of movement, dealt harshly with the Arab world?”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Such a people does not depend for the credentials of its statehood upon the authority or sanction of the Syrian representative. 103, I speak with some detail on these affairs, because the agenda of this session is rather full of Arab complaints against the world. Sometimes individual governments are denounced for not reaching standards satisfactory to the Arab States in their political, social and national progress, in their attachment to national liberty, equality and fraternity, in their habit of signing treaties without Arab permission, or in their efforts to solve the problem of minorities and civil rights. Sometimes the United Nations as a whole is abused as being responsible for all international difficulties because it does not always conform to the particular objectives of the Arab world. 104.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The only government in its area in which the ideals and practices of democracy are held up; almost the only country in the area in which individual freedom is not restricted by despotic monarchy or military dictatorship ; the only State which, above all others in the area, devotes its political freedom consistently and earnestly to the purpose of social and economic progress; the only State in the area in which all adult men and women have freedom to vote; the only government in the area which is prepared without condition to enter into full and normal relations with all other governments in the area; the only government in the region which by sacrifice close to the very point of exhaustion has given shelter and home to 750,000 of its kinsmen, while the Arab governments of that same area voluntarily withhold permanent home and shelter and employment from their own flesh and blood, whose flight and panic those governments caused and whose rehabilitation they have the full capacity to effect; the only government in the area which, despite all attack, refuses to abandon or renounce the ultimate prospect of Israel-Arab peace.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“My delegation deeply regrets that the representative of Syria, having also told the Governments of Israel and Germany what treaties they might or might not sign between them, then went on to question [396th meeting] the existence of our statehood and even resorted to expressions such as “alleged Israel State”, Israel “authorities” and “community”. 102. The emergence of Israel as a sovereign State has on many due occasions, and especially within recent days, received sufficient testimony of universal applause and approval to enable us to maintain belief in our statehood despite the strictures of the Syrian spokesman.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Is there any other government represented here which would receive or entertain claims or complaints persistently lodged against it by other governments which refuse to acknowledge its statehood and sovereignly and to seek agreed settlements in accordance with the basic purposes and principles of the Charter?. 100. The General Assembly of the United Nations, whose purpose is to reconcile differences and encourage agreements, should not be used as a melancholy substitute for normal international relations, as an alibi and evasion for States which will not carry out the most elementary of their international duties, namely, the establishment of norm?! relations with their neighbours and the regulation of all conflicts and differences within the framework of those normal relations. 101.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Here I would merely stress that the basic duty of the States of the Near East is not to maintain boycotts or intrude into each other's treaty relationships with third parties, but to negotiate directly for a settlement of their outstanding differences. Those who refuse to seek a settlement by direct negotiation have no moral right to complain before world tribunals because those problems are not solved. When has any problem ever been solved in the history of international relations except by those who agree to meet for a negotiated settlement?”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“I suggest in seriousness that it is not for other governments within the United Nations, or outside it, to model their attitude in this question on that of the Arab States. On the contrary, it is the right and bounden duty of the United Nations to require most insistently that the Arab States shall bring their relations with Israel into accord with those practised by the international community as a whole, both by the United Nations and by all Member States that maintain the decencies of international intercourse. 99. My delegation will return to this subject in the proper committee at the proper time.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The Security Council called upon Egypt to terminate all these restrictions on the passage of international commerce and goods wherever bound and to cease all interference with shipping and with the free passage of goods. 97. Israel will, of course, utilize its specific rights under that resolution. Here I am more concerned with its broad political and juridical effects. I am aware that many governments represented here are under constant pressure by Arab States to adapt their own policies towards Israel so as to conform with the objectives of the Arab boycott and blockade, I am confident that all those governments will Understand, from a reading of this resolution, and indeed of the Charter of the United Nations itself, that they would here be invited to participate in hostile and aggressive actions. 98.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The Security Council went on to affirm that since the armistice regime, which had been in existence for nearly two and a half years, was of a permanent character, neither party could reasonably assert that it was actively a belligerent or required to exercise the right of visit, search and seizure for any legitimate purpose of self-defence. Therefore the Security Council found that the maintenance of these blockade practices was inconsistent with the objectives of a peaceful settlement between the parties, that such practice was in abuse of the exercise of the right of visit, search and seizure, and that these practices could not in the prevailing circumstances be justified on the ground that they were necessary for self-defence.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The resolution recalled that, in a previous resolution relating to the conclusion of armistice agreements between Israel and the neighbouring Arab States, the Council had drawn attention to the pledges in these agreements against any further acts of hostility between the parties; it recalled further its reminder to the States concerned that the armistice agreements to which they were parties contemplated the return of permanent peace, and therefore urged them and the other States in the area to take all such steps as would lead to the settlement of the issues between them.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The principal organ of international security has pronounced a verdict of which, incidentally, Egypt is still in defiance. The discussion arose in the context of Israel’s complaints to the Security Council against Egyptian action in interfering with the passage of commerce and shipping on their way to Israel ports under alleged rights of blockade. In the course of condemning this Egyptian action and requiring its cessation, the Security Council made a clear and final definition of the wider political and juridical issues involved, 96. On 1 September 1951, at the 558th meeting, the Security Council examined Israel’s complaint, and adopted a resolution without dissent.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The offence is not that other nations negotiate agreements with Israel; the offence is that the Arab States do not themselves negotiate such agreements with Israel. The international illegality rests in the maintenance by Egypt of its boycott and blockade, not in the refusal of other governments to be marked by the infection of that boycott and blockade. The Arab policy of blockade towards Israel is something to be changed in itself, not something to be communicated to other spheres of international relations. 95. I wonder whether all Members of the General Assembly and of the wider public are aware that this question whether any State is entitled to base its policies towards Israel upon the theory of belligerency has been the subject of international adjudication.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Egypt, or the Arab States, are in a state of war with Israel ; they are entitled to maintain a policy of boycott to serve that state of war; they are further entitled to induce other States within the United Nations and outside of it to identify themselves with the alleged Egyptian state of war and also with the blockade and boycott which flow from it. Therefore, the argument goes on, Israel’s trade may legitimately be subject to pressures, controls and limitations, imposed in deference to Egypt or other Arab States. 94. It is here that this question becomes of much closer concern to the United Nations. Let there be no mistake. It is an international offence for any State even to invoke these justifications of belligerency, let alone to base international policies upon them.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The Government of Israel has reason and justification to expect the early and unconditional ratification of the Israel-German compensation treaty. We assume that the Government of Germany understands the paramount international importance of this treaty. This morning, The New York Times reported from Bonn: “Chancellor Conrad Adenauer asserted tonight that West Germany would stand by its restitution agreement with Israel, and would not yield to the threats of an economic boycott advanced by the Arab League. ‘I have signed the German-Israel agreement’, Dr. Adenauer said in radio interview. ‘I stick to my word.’” 93. The objection of the Egyptian representative, as exemplified by the action in Bonn and by allusions made in these debates, rests presumably upon the following assumption.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The General Assembly will observe that Arab States, Members of the United Nations, have threatened to apply sanctions to the German Government if that Government does not violate its international obligations, Thus the Arab League stands ready to apply a new and mournful system of international morality: they will punish attempted virtue ; they will reward the maintenance of an international crime, Within our separate States, the effort by any citizen to carry out the kind of extortion which the Arab League now attempts at Bonn and elsewhere would surely be described by some such word as “blackmail” and be recognized as one of the most despicable of offences. Why then should that concept here be asserted and avowed in so sensitive a sphere of international relations? 92.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The avowed object of this pressure is to cause a violation by Germany of its most compelling international obligation, to prevent any attempt at departing from the nazi tradition which has afflicted the life of the German people, to perpetuate the atmosphere and sentiments of nazism by opposing their voluntary expiation, and to do all this by arbitrary diplomatic intervention and by a threat of economic sanctions and political penalties. 91.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“If the territories of Israel and Germany were Egyptian colonial possessions, the Egyptian Foreign Minister could not have spoken with a more lordly and arbitrary decisiveness about what treaties they might or might not agree to sign. 90. But the speeches here do not exhaust the Story. They are part of the pressure campaign conducted by the Arab League in Bonn in an effort to persuade the German authorities not to honour their signature, and thus to bring an indelible disgrace upon mankind in the issue which, more than any other, affects the moral health of our generation.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Into this bilateral treaty between the Governments of Israel and Germany, into a matter which is none of their business and none of their concern, into a situation in which they lack the remotest right or title to interfere, the Arab Governments have now intruded with prejudice to the sovereignty of the signatory governments and with an abuse of the United Nations forum in order to magnify the echoes of this intervention. 89. The Foreign Minister of Egypt, speaking at this rostrum [395th meeting], took it upon himself to assert that Germany and Israel had no right or title to conclude the agreement which they have concluded.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“When the concepts of retribution and responsibility begin to attach to international crime as surely as they attach to individual crime within our separate societies, shall we not begin to see the portents of a new world order regulated by legal penalties and restraints? The conclusion, therefore, of the Luxembourg treaty naturally evoked a deep and unanimous echo of applause in all the free countries of the World. It was plain that the conclusion and implementation of this treaty constituted a deep and inescapable necessity, not merely for Germany and for Israel, but for the conscience of mankind, 88.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“For the first time in its bloodstained martyrdom, the Jewish people were able, as a result of Israel’s renewed sovereignty, to receive the public penitence of its most savage foe acting under the dictates of a tormented conscience, 87. The Nürnberg trials had been hailed as a great advance towards universal law because they recognized and confirmed the responsibility of individuals who, as leaders of nations, embarked upon aggression and violated the universal peace. But the Luxembourg meeting extended the frontiers of that advance. It laid it down that the people, in whose name the initiative for launching war is taken, bear the collective responsibility for all that follows from that initiative and for all the sequence of blood and suffering inflicted by the aggressor in his attack and by the defender in his response.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Behind the smiling villages and the gleaming cities of Central Europe and Eastern Europe, ostensibly the symbols of an ordered and merciful civilization, there had opened up a dark abyss of perverted hatred into which millions of our people had been pulled to their doom. 86. These memories of anguish, this unlimited ocean of blood and tears, were the sombre background of the Luxembourg encounter. The guilt was too extreme for any human forgiveness. The sorrow was too vast for any expiation. Yet within those limitations, an alert human conscience would see much significance in that meeting and in that treaty. It marked the ultimate victory of justice over brute force, of weakness over strength and of responsibility over arbitrary and tyrannical impunity.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Six million of our kinsmen, men, women and children, had been rounded up like cattle, crowded into trains, neatly and diabolically classified into categories and age groups — there were special trains of special design for children — and then in circumstances calculated to be most revolting to human dignity, were slaughtered, beheaded, asphyxiated in cold blood, and their remains devoted to satisfy the chemical deficiencies of an aggressive war machine. In the sequel of Allied victory and at the Nürnberg trials, an astonished humanity gasped in incredulity when the curtain went up upon this hideous scene. Along with the slaughter there had been an odious campaign of degradation. The fame, the pride and the repute of the Jewish people, the oldest family of the human race, had been foully attacked.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Historians of the future will pause in wonder when their eyes alight upon that solemn and silent encounter which took place upon the friendly soil of the Duchy of Luxembourg between representatives of Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany. 85. It was a moment unique in the moral history of civilization. It evoked the fresh and poignant memory of the most fearful crimes ever committed in a ghastly revolt against man’s essential humanity.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“They refuse to give home or shelter to their own kinsmen whose plight they wantonly caused and now deliberately perpetuate. But to these familiar themes of intransigence, they have now, in five speeches — two in the general debate and three in committee — added another: the unwarranted intervention, beyond their right or legal competence, into the treaty recently concluded between the Government of Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany. 84. This treaty, signed within the past few weeks, constitutes one of the most remarkable episodes which has taken place this year in the international life of this, or indeed of any other, generation.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The Israel delegation will make its chief contribution to the work of the General Assembly by offering detailed lines of action to our Main Committees which are engaged in the discussion of specific political tissues. 83. For these reasons, and for motives of restraint concerned with the tensions of our region, it was not my purpose until a few hours ago to participate in this general discussion. Those who have listened to the speeches made here on behalf of Arab Governments will have observed with regret that this sense of restraint has not been reciprocated. We note with deep concern that these governments appear resolved to maintain the original atmosphere of the armed aggression which they launched against Israel five years ago.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“It is difficult to remember a time when the United Nations confronted greater dangers to itself and to the cause of universal peace than those which crowd in upon it at this grave hour. If we rise from our deliberations without an earnest effort to advance towards agreed settlements of international issues, we shall not have served our destiny or risen to the full level of our cherished trust. All delegations should be haunted by these perils and uplifted by the contrary prospect of salvation which would burst upon our anxious world if we were able to chart some course of reconciliation through the conflicts and rancours of our times. We shall find no easy formula. There is no way of relieving the general tension except by encouraging agreements on the specific issues of which it is composed.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The Israel Government, which had itself learnt the consequences of war and the benefits of conciliation and which represented a new political unit whose traditions and future depended on the maintenance of international peace, would join its humble effort to any movement for extending the use of the methods of pacific settlement prescribed by the Charter. It was in that spirit that the delegation of Israel came forward to undertake its duties at its first full session of the General Assembly as a Member of the United Nations.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The solution of most international problems required an exact balance between the interests of the international community and those of an individual State. Yet when two legitimate interests faced each other, it was often possible to satisfy the main substance of both. 216. Small nations represented in the General Assembly must often ask themselves what they could contribute to the general welfare in a world so dominated by large units of power. Perhaps in their very disinterestedness and in their passionate need for security, they were the best qualified to search out the common ground between conflicting interests and to assert the persistent need for mediation.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The Israel Government aspired to full international recognition of the political status of the Government of Israel in Jerusalem. 214. A solution along those lines would have the following advantages over that proposed by the Commission: it would rest on consent and would therefore present no problem of implementation or enforcement; it would terminate the period of doubt and potential conflict that had already lasted too long; it would be financially and administratively feasible; and it would simultaneously give complete satisfaction to the interests of the great world religions and of the people of Jerusalem. Under those conditions, an era of peace and development would descend upon the Holy City, while the United Nations would stand forth as the ultimate and accepted guarantor of its religious immunity. 215.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The Foreign Minister of France (225th meeting) had carried the discussion into new and constructive channels by concisely emphasizing three factors: the importance of carrying out the practical objectives of the United Nations without undue insistence on juridical preferences; the need to avoid imposing obligations not strictly indispensable; and the desirability of seeking the consent of the population concerned. 213. The Israel delegation would propose that the General Assembly should limit the commitment of the United Nations to the safeguarding of the Holy Places and should initiate such formal agreements as might be necessary between the United Nations and the State of Israel for the implementation of those safeguards.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It would seek a solution which satisfied the interests and concern of the world religions and of the United Nations, and at the same time the aspirations of the people of Jerusalem to government and security in conformity with their national allegiance. 212. Israel was already encouraged by some principles put forward in the general debate. The Foreign Minister of the Netherlands (225th meeting) had rightly ascribed primary importance to the protection of the Holy Places and the need for an agreed solution.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It would put the entire city once more in the situation which had nearly produced its downfall a year previously, at the mercy of Arab forces which, by the facts of geography, would then be free to surround it from three sides. The demilitarization programme also conflicted with the armistice agreement which exclusively governed the security situation in the whole Jerusalem area, including the disposition and reduced size of armed forces. 211. Regardless of its strong feelings on the Commission’s report, the Israel delegation would contribute earnestly and constructively in the Assembly to the work of determining, in a practical and final form, the responsibilities of the United Nations on the one hand and of the Government of Israel on the other.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It knew that the Organization would not put up a notice to tire effect that no more Jews were wanted at the gates of the Holy City, which had been made illustrious in history through the spiritual experience of the Jewish people, wherefrom had branched off tire great streams of Christianity and Islam. Yet the fact that such a proposal could be made showed how urgent it was to begin formulating the policy of the United Nations in regard to Jerusalem anew, in close association with the peoples and interests involved. 210. Finally, a similar criticism could be made of the proposal for demilitarization, which failed to take account of two facts. In the first place, the simultaneous dismissal of Jewish and Arab forces from Jerusalem would not create equal security for both parts of the city.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The whole administrative superstructure, which would revolutionize the budget of the United Nations, was irrelevant to the primary objectives of the. Organization in Jerusalem. 209. Moreover, by dispensing with any effort to reach consent, the Conciliation Commission sometimes collided sharply with the devout political and religious conscience of the population. Thus, for example, there was a proposal in article 5 whereby Jews might be forbidden to take up residence in Jerusalem on the ground that they were Jews. The Israel Government knew the General Assembly too well to believe that there was a chance of such a proposal being adopted, and had no real feeling, of alarm.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“That procedural disregard of the opinion of the authorities and population directly concerned was unfortunately reflected in the substantive proposals themselves. The plan set up organs of government as though Jerusalem had no Government; it established courts as though Jerusalem had no courts; it made detailed arrangements for the control of public services as though Jerusalem were living in anarchy; it replaced independent institutions, resting upon consent, by new institutions having no roots in the city and no duty of response to democratic processes. Not one of those administrative councils was really necessary for the protection of the Holy Places; not one of those courts had duties essentially related to the religious associations of the city.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Indeed, in its second progress report (A/838), presented to the General Assembly on 19 April 1949, the Conciliation Commission for Palestine wrote that it was endeavouring “to formulate in conformity with the terms of paragraph 8 of the resolution of 11 December, proposals, which will at the same time be acceptable to both parties”. Yet the Commission had since apparently reached the conclusion that the consent of the parties was not an important or even a relevant consideration. The General Assembly was perhaps not aware of the fact that the plan presented by the Commission in document A/973 had never been discussed with the Government of Israel, which was administering almost the entire new city of Jerusalem. Nor had it been at any time the subject of negotiation with representatives of the population of Jerusalem. 208.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The existing situation in Jerusalem was thus both a cause and consequence of the city’s rescue and pacification. It rested firmly upon valid armistice agreements entered into by the parties concerned and endorsed by the Security Council. It was therefore a legal situation and not merely an accomplished fact. Moreover, the relation between Israel and Jerusalem constituted no obstacle whatsoever to the fulfilment by the United Nations of its desire and duty to undertake responsibilities for safeguarding the Holy Places and sites. 207. The fact that such firm patterns of authority and government already existed in Jerusalem made it imperative for the United Nations to seek a solution in harmony with established and legitimate interests.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The consequences of that situation, had it been permitted to endure, would have been annihilation for every Jew in Jerusalem as complete as that which could be inflicted by the most devastating bombardment. 205. Salvation had come from one quarter alone. The State of Israel, struggling against dire odds for very survival, had girded all its strength to throw a lifeline to the beleaguered city, reopening its communications and saving it from strangulation. Every man, woman and child in Jewish Jerusalem could thus ascribe the fact of his or her physical survival directly to the State of Israel and its Government. It was not surprising, therefore, that they were disposed to give their loyalty and co-operation to that Government alone. 206.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“In that respect, too, the Jewish citizens of Jerusalem were as those of all other cities. 204. Yet there was one aspect of the ties uniting Jewish Jerusalem and the State of Israel which had an altogether exceptional force. In 1947, after the United Nations had undertaken full responsibility both for the religious and the secular life of Jerusalem, it had failed to carry out that responsibility. Jerusalem had been subjected to siege and famine, while the international community, for several months, had remained supine. Men, women and children had fallen by the hundred in the city's defence and in its relief. At critical moments both water and food supplies had been cut off with no hope of replenishment.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The slowly reviving economy of Jerusalem was sustained and nourished by the State of Israel, which provided from its own resources all the social services of the new city — in regard to health, education, water supply and social welfare. The language and religion, the cultural sentiment and national allegiance of the Jews of Jerusalem were those which they held in common with the State of Israel and its people. 203. There was thus no link uniting a citizen of Paris to the Republic of France, there was no bond between a citizen of London and the United Kingdom, which did not exist between a Jew in Jerusalem and the State of Israel. For in modern society no man, however conscious of civic pride, felt complete in the limits of a purely municipal allegiance; he must reach out to identify himself with a wider political and social culture.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It would be a disservice to realistic investigation to ignore the exact relationship existing between the Jews of Jerusalem and the State of Israel, for that relationship would profoundly affect the task of the General Assembly in the Jerusalem question. 202. The situation might be briefly described. When a law was promulgated in Israel, the Jews of Jerusalem obeyed it. When a tax was levied in Israel, the Jews of Jerusalem paid it. When the parliamentary institutions of Israel were elected, the Jews of Jerusalem helped to elect them and participated in their operation. When civil or criminal litigation arose in Jerusalem, it was to the courts of Israel alone that the Jews of Jerusalem took their case. The coinage and stamps of Jewish Jerusalem were the coinage and stamps of Israel.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 19-18 did not make an unconditional demand for separate treatment or effective United Nations control in Jerusalem. It recommended separate treatment and effective international control explicitly “in view of [Jerusalem's] association with three world religions". Once full provision was made for the effective recognition of that religious association under United Nations supervision, the international and religious aspects of the problem would be settled, and there would remain only a problem of political relations in Jerusalem, to be solved in accordance with the principle of self-determination by the method of conciliation. 201.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Thus, if the political aspirations of Israel and of Jerusalem's population were carried to the point of repudiating the concern of the United Nations for the safeguarding of Holy Places and sites, there might he an encroachment upon a universal religious interest. No such eventuality would ever take place. On the other hand, if the United Nations were to impose upon the population of Jerusalem any burden of deprivation not strictly related to the satisfaction of universal religious interests, an encroachment would take place upon cherished political freedom. 200. It must be remembered that the safeguarding of the Holy Places and religious rights had always been the exclusive justification of any measure of international supervision.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It would thus be seen that Israel regarded the Jerusalem problem as composed of two elements, First, there was the responsibility of the United Nations for ensuring that Holy Places and sites were reverently preserved and that religious institutions were assured full liberty in the exercise of their functions. Secondly, there was the responsibility, no less valid, and for the Government of Israel not one whit less compelling, for ensuring to the Jewish population of the city the full enjoyment of its democratic political rights in association with the only Government to which it was prepared to offer its allegiance. 199. There was no incompatibility between those two purposes. Conflict could arise only if there was an unjustified encroachment by one upon the other.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Just as we are resolved to give complete and practical expression to the universal interest arising from the Holy Places, so we expect that the international community will understand the direct and inescapable responsibility which Israel bears and exercises in the daily life and administration of Jewish Jerusalem." 197. On 5 May I949 when the Ad Hoc Political Committee had proceeded to discuss the Jerusalem question in relation to Israel’s obligations under Article 4 of the Charter, Mr. Eban, in accordance with his Government’s instructions, had developed those principles by advocating the establishment by the United Nations of international agencies extending over the whole city but "concerned exclusively with the control and protection of Holy Places.” 198.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)