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

“To these detailed proposals, the United Arab Republic replied declining direct or specific comment, and limiting itself to a general reference to the text of the Security Council’s resolution. The United Arab Republic would recite the resolution in a declaration of acceptance without any specification to us of how it proposed to reach concrete agreements. In the meantime, Egyptian policy had been authoritatively defined by President Nasser in a formal utterance on 23 June. In that statement, the United Arab Republic’s President expressed willingness to attempt, as in March 1957, “a political solution” on condition that certain principles of Egyptian policy be recognized.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“On 29 May, after a discussion in our Cabinet, I made a statement in the Knesset proposing a method of implementing the Security Council resolution through negotiation, agreement and the signature and application of treaty engagements to be worked out between the parties. In this, as in previous documents, it was made clear that we regarded the establishment of the boundary as a matter for negotiation and agreement. 102. On 14 June, I was informed that this proposal had been conveyed to the United Arab Republic’s Permanent Representative who had noted it without reaction. At the end of August, I submitted to the United Arab Republic’s Foreign Minister, by the same means, a series of ideas and viewpoints on the implications of the term, “a just and final peace”. This was developed in further communications early in September.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“We were later informed that the United Arab Republic had rejected and that Jordan had not accepted this course. 100. On 1 May, Ambassador Tekoah was empowered to indicate on Israel’s behalf, in the Security Council, Israel’s acceptance of the 22 November resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. The Israeli representative was authorized to reaffirm that we were willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on ail the matters included in the resolution, and that we accepted the suggestion of Dr. Jarring to bring about meetings between Israel and its neighbours under his auspices in fulfilment of his mandate for the purpose of achieving a peaceful and accepted settlement. 101.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“It drew attention to the fact that the resolution is a framework for agreement and that it can be fulfilled only by an exchange of views and proposals leading to bilateral contractual commitments. It accepted the sponsor’s view that the principles recommended for inclusion in the peace settlement are integrally linked and interdependent, and it proposed to move forward to a more substantive stage and to embark on a meaningful negotiation for achieving a just and lasting peace called for by the Security Council. 99. Early in March of this year our reaction was sought to a proposal to convene Israel, the United Arab Republic and Jordan in conferences under Ambassador Jarring’s auspices to seek an agreed settlement in fulfilment of his mandate under the Security Council’s resolution. We accepted this course.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
““The next step should be to bring the parties together. I refer to the agreement which I expressed to you on 1 February for the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to convene the two Governments.” 97. That message elicited no substantive response. On 19 February I communicated another message to Mr. Jarring for transmission to Cairo. This message assured the Secretary-General’s representative of Israel’s full co-operation in his efforts to promote agreement and to achieve an accepted settlement for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in accordance with his mandate under the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967. 98. It further pointed that the United Arab Republic is aware of Israel’s willingness to negotiate on all matters included in the Security Council’s resolution.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“On 12 February, by the same means, I conveyed the following to the Governments of Egypt and Jordan through the Special Representative of the Secretary-General: “Israel has co-operated and will co-operate with you in your Mission. We accept the Security Council’s call, in its resolution of 22 November 1967, for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of peace with secure and recognized boundaries. “Once agreement is reached on a peace settlement, it will be faithfully implemented by Israel. "As I indicated to you on 1 February 1968, Israel is prepared to negotiate on all matters included in the. Security Council resolution which either side wishes to raise. Our views on the problems cf peace and our interpretation of the resolution were stated by me in the Security Council on 22 November 1967.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Territorial security, economic and humanitarian problems impinge directly on each other. Moreover, the political and juridical basis of this relationship is of overriding importance. If there is a prior agreement to establish relations of permanent peace, the specific problems at issue between the two countries can be effectively and honourably solved.” 95. I went on to list the five major subjects on which we should seek agreement. These included the establishment of the boundary and security arrangements, which were specifically described as being open to negotiation and agreement. No reply was made to that approach. 96.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“The United Arab Republic made no reply, offered no comment, presented no counter-proposals. Indeed, from that day to this, the United Arab Republic has not sent us a single document referring to or commenting specifically on any Israeli letters. 94. On 7 January I conveyed to the Jordan Government, through Ambassador Jarring, a letter in which we sought to open a constructive dialogue. That letter reads in part: “History and geography create an objective affinity of interest between the two countries. More than any other relationship between Middle Eastern States this one involves human interests in a close degree of interdependence. A close and confident association would seem to be as necessary for Jordanian as for Israeli welfare. “The major problems at issue between Jordan and Israel are closely interconnected.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“That would be a short and certain route to renewed war in conditions hostile to Israel’s security and existence. 93. Our contacts with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General began in December 1967. At the end of that month, on 27 December, I conveyed a document to the Egyptian Foreign Minister through Ambassador Jarring, proposing an agenda for a discussion on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. In that communication I expressed a willingness to hear the United Arab Republic’s views and suggested that representatives of our two Governments be brought together informally in order to explore each other’s intentions and to derive assurance and confidence for future contacts. In our letter we made it clear that the establishment of the boundary was fully open - to negotiation and agreement.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Those were the understandings on which Israel’s co-operation with Ambassador Jarring’s mission was sought and obtained. Whatever our views might be on these formulations by other Governments, it has been evident at every stage that the two central issues are the establishment of a permanent peace and an agreement for the first time on the delineation of secure and mutually recognized boundaries. These are the conditions prerequisite for any movement. It is here that the peace-making process must begin. If these problems are solved, all the other issues mentioned in the resolution fall into place. To seek a change in the cease-fire dispositions, without the framework of a just and lasting peace and the determination of secure and recognized boundaries, is an irrational course for which there is no international authority or precedent.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“As Lord Caradon said, it was not a call for a temporary truce or a superficial accommodation. It reflected, as he said, a refusal, to be associated with any so-called settlement which was only a continuation of a false truce. Its author stated that any “action to be taken must be within the framework of a permanent peace, and withdrawal must be to secure boundaries". The term “secure and recognized boundaries” had first appeared in a United States draft, the author of which pointed out that this meant something different from old armistice demarcation lines. Secure and recognized boundaries, he said, had never existed in the Middle East. They must, therefore, now be fixed by mutual agreement of the parties in the course of the peace-making process. 92.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“June 1967 must be the last of the Middle Eastern wars. That resolve has moved our policy at every stage of the political discussion from the outbreak of hostilities to this very day. 91. In June and July 1967 the General Assembly rejected all proposals which sought to condemn Israel’s resistance or to reconstruct the conditions which led to the outbreak of the war. A new stage was reached when the Security Council adopted its unanimous resolution [242(1967)] on 22 November 1967. That resolution was presented to us for our acquiescence not as a substitute for specific agreement but as a list of principles on which the parties could base their agreement. It was drafted, as Ambassador Ball recalled on 11 September, as “a skeleton of principles on which ... peace could be erected". It was not meant to be self-executing.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Our nation still lives intimately with the dangers which then confronted us. We still recall how the imminent extinction of Israel’s statehood and the massacre of its population were seriously discussed across the world: in wild intoxication of spirit in Arab capitals, and with deep impotent sorrow in other lands. To prevent the renewal of those dangers is the first law of our policy. The gravest danger is lest through lassitude of spirit or imprecision of diplomatic craftsmanship or collapse of patience we again revert to fragile, false and ambiguous solutions which carry within them the seed of future wars. Those of us who bear responsibility for our nation’s survival and for our children’s lives cannot have anything to do with vague solutions which fall short of authentic and lasting peace.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Behind Israel’s quest for secure life there is a particular and hideous legacy of wholesale death in the European slaughter-house. In May 1967 we found ourselves beset by deadly peril which we faced in utter solitude of action and responsibility. Maritime blockade, murderous incursions, military encirclement, declarations of overt war, a frenzied torrent of violent threats and a formal announcement by President Nasser that the battle was joined for Israel’s extinction all came together in a cumulative assault on Israel’s life and security. 90. All the acts which fall under the widely supported definitions of aggression were simultaneously concerted against us. The universal conscience was deeply stirred. Millions across the world trembled for Israel’s fate. The memory of those dark days broods over Israel’s life.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Such intellectual frivolity is not heard on any other international issue. 88. Israel cannot easily forget the immense loss and burden which it has borne through the implacable hostility directed against it for twenty years, culminating in the unforgettable summer of 1967. For there has not been any six-day war: there has been a twenty-year war conducted by Arab States in varying degrees of intensity with the candid hope of Israel’s ruin and destruction. The issue is whether this war is now going to be ended by a final peace or merely interrupted in order to be resumed in conditions more propitious for Arab success. 89. Our danger in 1967 was the climax and not the whole story of our predicament. No other people has had to live all its days with a mark of interrogation hanging over its collective and individual survival.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“The total and unblemished self-satisfaction with which they have spoken; the complete absence in their words of any self-criticism or innovation; above all, the lack of detailed and organized comment on concrete issues — all these illustrate the inhibition which still prevents Arab Governments from thinking lucid and constructive thoughts about their relations with Israel. Indeed, yesterday, the Foreign Minister of Sudan actually recommended that Israel simply be dismantled and its people dispersed. Here we have the oldest and most tenacious link in all history between a people and a land, a link which is part of the universal human experience; and yet a Foreign Minister speaks of Israel as though it were a temporary interactional exhibition to be folded up and taken away.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“My Government has decided to give the Members of the United Nations a detailed account of its views on the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Amidst the tumult of a rancorous public debate the deeper motives of our policy have not always been clearly perceived. A structure of peace cannot, of course, be built by speeches at this rostrum. It may, however, be useful for the parties to clarify their intentions and to draw a picture of their policies beyond the routine vocabulary in which this discussion has been held down for sixteen months. 87. In the interest of peace, I shall refrain from detailed comment on the polemical observations made here by Foreign Ministers of Arab States.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“While African statesmanship seeks an outcome to the political dilemma, the whole world community should co-operate in the relief of human anguish. 85. It is not only on the African continent that human rights are jeopardized. In Eastern Europe we have seen the odious spirit of anti-Semitism evoked to justify repressive policies. In other areas of Eastern Europe Jews still suffer grave disabilities in their cultural and religious self-expression, and in other fields. And in some Arab lands ancient Jewish communities have been victimized in revenge for the failure of the assault upon Israel in 1967, while any international interest in their plight is stubbornly obstructed. They cannot speak; they cannot even bring petition. 86.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“The habit of forcibly segregating and separating peoples on grounds of ethnic and cultural differences began with the Jewish . ghetto system in Europe. My people thus has the longest recollection of the agony to which this principle inevitably leads. 84. Our particular memories have also sharpened our reaction to the cruel suffering now passing over populations and tribes in the eastern regions of the Nigerian Federation. Our Government, Parliament and citizens have been moved not only to make a special effort to bring relief to those who suffer, but also to raise an urgent voice for a solution which will end the bloodshed and famine whose vast dimensions give this problem its universal human context.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“The admission of Swaziland to our membership brings deep satisfaction to all amongst us who have supported African nations and communities in their pursuit of national independence, human equality and accelerated development of their economies and societies. Toy, the liberty of nations is often peacefully achieved under the benign impact of world opinion. And when a small new State comes into the.light of freedom, it is its flag in the United Nations, above all else, which symbolizes and excites its sense of identity. 83. But the task is not ended. There are still relics of colonialism which must be replaced by independence; and racial discrimination still deprives millions of their birthright of dignity in large areas of Africa.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“It alone involves all States in the adventure of world community. But the gap between the dream and the reality is inordinately wide. The time is ripe for a review conference at which the United Nations will not celebrate its past, but plan its future. The Organization should look at itself, classify its experience, and reform or rationalize its procedures within the text of the present Charter. The twenty-fifth anniversary of its foundation might be due occasion for this exercise in frank and creative self-criticism. 82. The United Nations has been a proud and active witness of African liberation.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Of the movement of wealth from the advanced to the developing countries in 1966, less than 2 per cent came from all the multilateral agencies combined. Of the 80,000 technicians and experts in developing countries during 1960 - 1967, only 3,000 were United Nations representatives in the framework of the United Nations Development Programme. 81. To such sources of debility we must add procedural weaknesses, such as the excessively long and repetitive agenda of the General Assembly and the tendency to hold massive conferences of which the fruits are not always easily visible. And yet with all this there was never a greater objective need for a unitary framework of international relations than in this age of global history. The United Nations, with all its imperfections, is still the only incarnation of a planetary spirit.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“The difficulty can be overcome only by steadily seeking a consensus including the interested States, and by encouraging agreement between the two parties at interest rather than by injunction and enforcement. In short, there should be a diplomatic rather than a parliamentary approach to United Nations activities. 80. The harsh fact is that, except for occasions of special urgency and tension, there is a diminishing public resonance to United Nations activities. The political difficulties of our Organization would be counteracted if it were able to play a more decisive role in the development process. But the Development Decade is now coming to an end in disappointment, with none of its goals attained. Sixteen per cent of the world’s population commands 70 per cent of the world’s resources.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Debate, not negotiation, dominates the United Nations practice. Resolutions are often adopted in a rhetorical spirit irrespective of their equity or prospect of fulfilment. These texts often reveal the mathematical accident of membership rather than a balanced verdict. For example, in a dispute between two parties, one of which has a single vote and the other fifteen, the mere assertion of majority power is not likely to be of moral weight. The Security Council has dealt often with the Middle East, but when more than one-third of its Members are States whose diplomatic relations or ethnic and sentimental predilections are entirely on one side, the majority vote loses its moral and political worth. 79.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“There are few more disquieting documents in modern international history than the record of the Security Council’s proceedings in May-June 1967. It tells small States with lucid clarity that they cannot yet in the present situation count on obtaining their security from here. If threatened with aggression, their choice is often to perish or surrender, or to save their lives in future by their own responsibility and sacrifice. 77. Now this frustration of the Charter vision arises partly from the prolonged discord and contention of the major Powers. There are other causes. 78. A report by the Secretary-General some years ago contained a plea to give greater emphasis “to the United Nations as an instrument for negotiation of settlements as distinct from the mere debate of issues". The plea was vain.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“The absence of such major problems from our agenda illustrates the declining place of the United Nations in modern international life. The main currents of action and discourse amongst nations seem to flow increasingly outside these walls. It is only superficially consoling that one conflict — in the Middle East — is under constant United Nations discussion. For this crisis, too, arises largely from the fact that for twenty years the United Nations was not able to end the Arab war against Israel; and in the early summer of 1967 the Security Council abdicated its function. As the clouds of war gathered and Israel’s peril grew, the highest organ of international security fled from the scene, impotent to act and unwilling to speak.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“A similar conclusion flows from the continuation of the war in South-East Asia, on which the United Nations has had no effect. Here, at least, the opening of direct talks has evoked profound relief. In this, as in all other conflicts, there can be no peace without agreement, and no agreement without negotiation. But while the talks go on, the bombs, the shells and bullets reap a deadly harvest. There is no cease-fire; and although there is a wide consensus for de-escalation, this has not yet led to any operative agreements. The need is urgent for the establishment of peace on the basis of the Geneva Agreements, in conditions which would let the peoples of Viet-Nam, South and North, determine their future, free from intimidation or constraint. 76.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“If so, what is left of the Charter principle of the sovereign equality of States? 74. Now the question is heavy with significance in the light of Europe’s tormented history, but its relevance is not confined to Europe alone. It is relevant particularly to the Middle East, where the Power that invaded Czechoslovakia has adopted a one-sided attitude in the political dispute and has at every stage stimulated an arms race. If an issue of such massive scope as that of Czechoslovakia is abandoned by the United Nations after a few days of inconclusive discussion in the Security Council, will not the result emphasize the constitutional weakness of the international tribunal and its lack of centrality in the life and thought of our age? 75.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“The invasion was openly designed to prevent a Member State from freely following a peaceful course in pursuit of its sovereign rights. Thirty years after the political settlement at Munich, we see the darkness fall again upon the Czechoslovak nation. 73. No less ominous than the invasion itself are the reasons adduced in its support, for if these are accepted there is little safety for small nations anywhere. The argument touches the very heart and essence of national sovereignty. Are the nations of eastern Europe truly sovereign? Or must the smaller States in the area be subservient to the interest and will of the region’s leading Power? And does a strong Power have some inherent right to impose its will and interest on smaller States in disregard of their will and their interest?”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“71. Mr. President, Israel sincerely welcomes your election to the Presidency of this General Assembly. Your elevation to this office does honour to Guatemala and to the entire family of the American Republics. It is also a well-deserved tribute to your eminent personal qualities which have so often been put to the service of the United Nations. You follow in the footsteps of our colleague, Mr. Corneliu Manescu, the Foreign Minister of Romania, who directed our work with high distinction and energy during the last session. 72. The world scene today is remarkable for a multiplicity of grave issues and for the marginal role of the United Nations in their solution. Since we last met, the peace of Europe has been shaken by the Soviet military occupation of Czechoslovakia.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“If international bodies and friendly nations can help to keep this vision alive, then the past year may have seen the last of our region's wars, and the first glow of its future peace.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The United Nations will serve the deepest international truths if it summons the nations of the Middle East to their inalienable responsibility for shaping the future of their common region. 169. The shocks and ordeals of the past year have added a new dimension to Israel's experience. They have also reminded the world of what is involved in our nation's survival. History speaks to us across centuries of time. Civilized humanity cannot ignore Israel without rejecting its own youth. The first need is for greater vigour and boldness in resisting the policies which deny the central fact of Israel's sovereignty and right to peace and security. The issue thereafter is whether the Arab and Israeli nations, which have been primary agents in man's spiritual adventure, can transcend their conflict in dedication to a creative future.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Indeed, the pathos of Middle Eastern life lies in the useless draining away in regional strife of vital energies which should be brought into the service of the great human causes. 168. For nearly twenty years the United Nations has been discussing the issues arising from an obdurate refusal to acknowledge and recognize the sovereign rights of one of its Members. This is the primary cause and single origin of the conflict. Just as the conflict has a single cause, so also does it have a single solution. The mere decision to negotiate a peace settlement embodies the prospect of solving the political, territorial, humanitarian and security problems which will never be overcome across a gulf of sullen separation.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The definition of aggression is for us a matter of deep historic and moral importance. All that the appropriate committee has to do is to enumerate what Israel has suffered from the Arab States in the past two decades. It will then have a complete and detailed draft for a convention on the definition of aggression. 167. In the appropriate committees, my delegation will strive to promote the pacific settlement of disputes; the accelerated advancement of developing societies; the defence and consolidation of human rights; and the elimination of colonialism, racialism and religious and ethnic discrimination. Amidst national ordeals we must all pursue our international vocation.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Who in the Middle East supported armed bands organized in its own territory to invade the territory of another State and refused to take in its own territory any action within its power to deny such bands any aid or protection? Syria or Israel? Who has sought to justify such action by the affirmation that the State so attacked lacks the distinguishing marks of statehood? Israel or the Arab States? 166. Is there not a vast gulf between the objective Soviet criteria on aggression and the refusal to apply those criteria to the policies of Arab States towards Israel? This is the crux of the item proposed. What is the use of elaborating general principles if they are not to be objectively applied in particular cases? Discussion on the Soviet item is therefore to be warmly welcomed.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“"(e) Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State; "(f) Support of armed bands organized in its own territory which invade the territory of another State, or refusal, on being requested by the invaded State, to take in its own territory any action within its power to deny such bands any aid or protection; "... "6. Attacks [such as those referred to above] may not be justified by any considerations of a political, strategic or economic nature, or by ... the refusal to recognize that [the State attacked] possesses the distinguishing marks of statehood." 165. Who in the Middle East imposed a naval blockade on the coast or port of another State? Egypt or Israel?”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“It is also aggressive to intervene by subversion in the affairs of sovereign States. 163. Israel affirms its solidarity with the resistance of the American States, as expressed in their current meetings, to interventionist policies and acts of subversion carried out against Venezuela, Bolivia and other American States under the spurious cloak of liberation, 164. But there is one document on the definition of aggression which puts this subject squarely in the context of the Middle Eastern crisis. Here is an extract from a draft convention on the definition of aggression submitted some years ago by the Soviet Union to the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly: "1. In an international conflict that State shall be declared the attacker which first commits one of the following acts: “...”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Gromyko in the Security Council denounced what he called the "armed aggression and military operations directed against the Jewish State" by the invading army of Transjordan, On 21 May of that year he had already expressed: "...surprise at the position adopted by the Arab States... and particularly at the fact that those States — or some of them, at least — have resorted to such action as sending their troops into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed at the suppression of the national liberation movement in Palestine". 162. Now we should do well to remember that the Middle Eastern tension today is nothing but the unfinished sequel to that original aggression. It is as true today as it was in July 1948 that to plan or carry out operations designed to liquidate a sovereign State is inherently aggressive.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“If the anniversary of the October Revolution were to inaugurate this revision of policy, then the international outlook would be greatly transformed and the anniversary itself would become a positive political event. 160. The Israel delegation will give its full attention to the forthcoming discussion on the definition of aggression. That discussion does not begin anew. There are already established criteria which most peace-loving States would accept. The official Arab war against Israel, now entering its twentieth year, offers many examples which the Soviet Union and Israel should be able to assess in a similar light. 161. First, there is the use of armed force across a frontier with the aim of destroying a sovereign State. On 7 July 1948 Mr.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Is it not unfortunate, even incongruous, that the fiftieth anniversary of the October Revolution should be clouded by a Soviet policy of hostility to a small people which achieved its independence with strong Soviet support: a nation which suffered untold anguish in the Hitler decade and now finds its last hope of identity and survival under such persistent challenge and assault? 159. Surely the aspiration of the Soviet Union to be acknowledged everywhere as a peace-loving and progressive Power demands a policy less hostile to Israel's security and legitimate rights, and more respectful of the Jewish cultural and spiritual heritage in the Soviet Union and the world.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Finally, the Soviet Union, which has exceeded all other Member States in the number of Assembly resolutions to which it has refused compliance, volunteered its presence for the imposition of sanctions against, Israel for not having passively submitted to the Jordanian bombardment of Jerusalem — and for having established unified and equal services in a City against whose illicit invasion by Jordan Mr. Gromyko himself spoke so eloquently in the Security Council in July 1948. 158.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“In not one single word did the Soviet Foreign Minister suggest any modification of extremist Arab policies towards Israel. He made no appeal for the cessation of belligerent practices, for free navigation of Israeli ships and cargos, for negotiation or for the conclusion of peace between the Arab States and Israel. Speaking for a country which in the past two decades has expanded its territory over vast areas of Europe in the name of security, Mr. Gromyko seems to be indignant at the idea that a viable security system and permanent frontier agreements should be constructed in the Middle East for the first time by negotiation and mutual accord.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The unbalanced policy of one of the Powers charged with primary responsibility for international peace and security has thus served to aggravate hatred and rancour amongst Middle Eastern peoples. Writers, intellectuals, and socialist and communist leaders in many lands have expressed a strong wish to see the Soviet Union adopt a more balanced policy in the Middle East and to show a sensitive regard for the cultural ties and spiritual solidarities which bind Jewish communities throughout the world, including those in the Soviet Union. 157. Mr. Gromyko's address [1563rd meeting] said in effect that the best way to promote peace is to restore the conditions which have led to war. His denunciation of Israel runs counter to the passionate sentiment of progressive opinion in all countries, including Eastern European countries.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Not one specific public word has been uttered by the Soviet Union for several years concerning the duty of neighbouring States to respect Israel's sovereignty and security. And according to President Nasser, it was a Soviet report of nonexistent Israeli troop concentrations on the Syrian frontier which influenced the decision of the United Arab Republic to mass troops in Sinai and to dismiss the United Nations force. This is a grave and fearful guilt. During the first weeks of the recent hostilities, the Soviet Press, which is not entirely resistant to governmental influence, published a series of caricatures portraying Israel in monstrous anti-Semitic stereotypes reminiscent of the Stuermer. On 6 September, a violent attack on the Jewish religion and on its concept of divinity appeared in the Pravda Ukrainy. 156.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“For over a decade the Soviet Union has initiated and developed a vast programme of one-sided arms importation into Arab States with a resultant escalation in the quantity and destructive quality of weapons in the Middle East. The Soviet Government has for fourteen years prevented the Security Council, apparently as a matter of principle, from ever expressing any criticism of any act of Arab hostility against Israel, The denial of free passage in the Suez Canal; the violent obstruction of legitimate water development; the murder of Israelis on Israeli soil by Arab infiltrators; the sponsorship by Syria of terrorist infiltration — all went forward under the protective wing of the Soviet veto.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Indeed, the Soviet Union secured practically no support for its policies and ideas outside the Soviet and Arab groups. A distinguished representative of the Latin American group spoke of "an extremist and ridiculous Soviet resolution". Indeed, the Soviet theory of alleged Israeli "aggression" was so far-fetched that only Bulgaria and two other members of the Security Council gave it their support. It was, therefore, surprising to find Mr. Gromyko coming back here to present the very merchandise which had been rejected by this body a few weeks ago. 155. The tension which exploded in the Middle East on 5 June was largely of Soviet manufacture.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“After twenty sordid years of division, war and sacrilege, there is now unity, peace and the assurance of access to the Holy Places, There are still matters to be resolved in Jerusalem, As we have pointed out in our communication, the present situation, which has arisen directly from Jordanian aggression, does not foreclose or pre-empt the agreed settlement of those important aspects of the Jerusalem problem which have always been at the origin of the universal interest in the City. 154. My Government and delegation have carefully studied Foreign Minister Gromyko's address in the general debate [1563rd meeting]. The General Assembly in its fifth emergency special session emphatically rejected all the accusations, charges and proposals brought before it by the Soviet Union.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“I have found it shocking to behold with my own eyes the destruction and sacrilege suffered by Jewish religious institutions and to reflect that the principle of access to the Holy Places of the three religions was so wantonly violated for so long. Those who read the records and annals of the United Nations in future years will be astonished not to find a single word of criticism directed against a regime which made Jerusalem a military frontier, which separated its citizens into two hostile camps, and which, by obstruction of access, desecrated some of the highest and noblest sanctities in the history of mankind.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“But there is relative silence about Jewish communities, especially in Egypt, whose members are not free to move—because they are held in conditions of cruelty in concentration camps for no reason or purpose except of sheer malice. The fact that universal Jewish religious interests could have been violated for many years by Jordan without international protest, and that Jewish victims of a war provoked by Egypt can thus languish amidst international silence has a grave significance in the light of a particular historic experience going back many centuries. 153. In a recent communication to the Secretary-General, I have commented on the present situation in Jerusalem. We cannot think without indignation of the policy adopted during the period of Jordanian occupation and annexation.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“A month ago they were urged to return westward against a background of incitement to civil disorder. Now when thousands could be returning at this very moment under categories approved by the Israel Government, their return is wantonly delayed or prevented. 152. I regret to note another element of discrimination in the international comment on the Middle Eastern travail. There has been an intense campaign of interest concerning west bank residents who moved without coercion across the Jordan as a result of King Hussein's wanton war. They are now free in personal movement; thousands have returned, and thousands more have been authorized to return.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)