YouSaid · the spoken record

TOMEH

lines on the record

230

first

1965-09-24

most recent

1969-09-24

sittings or episodes

4

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

1. “On the one hand, Zionism employs all the methods of old colonialism through occupation of a land, expulsion of its people and confiscation of its property, while on the other hand Israel plays the role of benevolent provider, when it is in fact an imperialist tool, commissioned by imperialist countries to grant loans and extend assistance in their name. 17. The conspiracy of Israel with the imperialist countries is not limited to economic matters. It has been proved beyond doubt that Israel has co-operated with colonialist Powers and interests In many of the countries struggling to achieve independence. The records of the United Nations abound in instances in which the delegation of Israel has taken a negative stand on the struggle of African countries for emancipation. 18.”

   1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

2. “Emerging nations are threatened today by various types of colonial and neo-colonial forms of economic penetration, where advantage is taken of the need of the developing countries, which have recently achieved independence, to secure assistance or technical help. It is through these channels that neo-colonialism attempts to re-establish its position of power and control. 16. While we express these views on imperialism and colonialism and the various means which they employ to gain control in the developing countries, we find that the Zionist occupation of Palestine constitutes one of the highest peaks attained by both colonialism and imperialism.”

   1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

3. “The establishment of new British military bases in Muscat and other sheikhdoms on the Arabian Gulf proves beyond doubt that the British Government is flouting the resolutions of our Organization. This colonialist obstinacy only strengthens our demand that British troops be evacuated immediately from the region. There is no reason why the people of the area should continue to be deprived of decent life and liberty, and the colonial propaganda attempting to convey to the outside world that the colonialist presence is the forerunner of progress does not deceive anybody In this enlightened age. 15.”

   1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

4. “Colonialism, cunning as it is, offers false pretexts to justify Its unwillingness to abide by the resolution and grant freedom to its colonies, thus depriving the colonial peoples of the enjoyment of their lawful right to independence and emancipation. 14. What is happening today in Aden, Oman and Southern Arabia, where brave freedom-fighters are massacred simply because they claim their Inalienable rights, is in fact an example of colonialist tyranny, which no United Nations resolutions, code of human rights, or considerations of justice or morality restrains. The embittered struggle for Independence in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula bears witness to British colonialism, which has delayed Its awaited departure from the area and has thus far violated United Nations resolutions calling for the ending of colonialism there.”

   1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

5. “Indeed, the continued presence of Portuguese colonialism in Africa is nothing but a manifestation of colonial rule based on sheer brute force. This lamentable state of affairs continues in defiance of the Declaration of independence adopted by the General Assembly at its fifteenth session calling for the liquidation of colonialism everywhere in the world. A Special Committee was then established whose mandate was to implement the resolution. Syria feels honoured to be a member of this Special Committee, which we think has achieved a notable record and contributed greatly to the cause of liberty in the world. 13.”

   1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

6. “In addition to all this, the racist white regime in Rhodesia has declared unilaterally its independence, in defiance of world public opinion, moral and human values and the principles of international law. 11. In this connexion, how does Israel differ from the regime established in Southern Rhodesia? Here, too, a foreign minority, brought to Palestine from the four corners of the earth, has been afforded the means — in complicity with the colonialist Powers — to impose its will on the inhabitants of the country. As a result of this colonialist venture, a whole people has been dispossessed and expelled from its homeland. 12. The pretext to justify this unparalleled aggression has been that the Jews lived in Palestine some two thousand years ago. Were we to accept this fallacy, the map of the world would be completely changed.”

   1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

7. “In fact there is no difference between the American contention that the United States has the right to remain in Viet-Nam in order to protect it against alleged communist dangers, and the contention of the colonialist Powers, under the pretext of a civilizing mission, that they have a right to remain in the territories they still occupy. 10. Pretexts are always being used to justify subjugation of the peoples of Asia and Africa. Is not Southern Rhodesian neo-colonialism a case in point? What else is the justification for the presence of a minority in Rhodesia which subjects the country to its will try force of arms while preventing the overwhelming majority of the population from exercising their right to independence and freedom?”

   1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

8. “We are convinced that the situation will become even more dangerous, unless the United States is prepared to recognize the right of the people of Viet-Nam to self-determination without any outside interference, It has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt that there can be no other solution to the war than by stopping the bombing of North Viet-Nam, withdrawing United States troops from Viet-Namese soil, recognizing the Viet-Cong as the representative of the people of South Viet-Nam, and returning to the Geneva Agreements. 9.”

   1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

9. “We say so because we think that, had the people of Viet-Nam not believed so profoundly in the justice of their cause and the legitimacy of their fight, and had they not known that the majority of the peoples of the world support their struggle and stand by them, they would not have been able to withstand so valiantly the aggression directed against them. 7. No words are more adequate to illustrate the dangers that threaten our countries and the despair that will settle over the masses of our peoples should this aggressive war continue than the words uttered by our Secretary-General when he announced that he would not offer himself for another term to this eminent post, after he had tried all methods and exhausted all diplomatic means of persuasion. 8.”

   1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

10. “It is high time that the United States Government realized that its persistent attempts to ignore China on the international scene have, among other things, led it to its present predicament in South-East Asia. The tragedy of the war in Viet-Nam is but one of the consequences of this aggressive policy which is costing the American people the loss of thousands of their youths and billions of dollars. 6. The fact that the people of Viet-Nam, small in number, have been able to withstand the onslaught against them should represent something meaningful to all large and small countries, and more especially to those of us who belong to the emerging nations in the world.”

    1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

11. “The Organization cannot achieve universality nor truly reflect the realities of international society when the representatives of one quarter of the people of this earth are denied the right to sit amongst us and participate in finding solutions for the crises that beset the world. The United States is totally responsible for preventing the People's Republic of China from occupying its rightful place among us. The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic, which has taken the initiative, along with a number of other Aslan and African delegations, in requesting a discussion of this question, expresses the hope that the United States will at long last discontinue its opposition to the seating of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations. 5.”

    1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

12. “We are also happy about the return of Indonesia to the United Nations, and warmly welcome Guyana, Botswana and Lesotho in our midst. Thus the domain of freedom is expanding and the rule of colonialism receding. And we are confident that the Organization will greatly benefit from the contributions of these newly admitted Members; they bring us a precious experience and a resonant voice, to mingle with the experience and voices of lands, such as mine, that have tasted the bitterness of foreign rule and would strive to make the Organization reflect the hopes and problems of a new world. 4.”

    1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

13. “1. Mr. President, it is my pleasant duty to extend to you, on behalf of the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic, our congratulations on your election to preside over the General Assembly at its twenty-first session. Your election to this high office is an expression of the great esteem that all representatives have for your personal qualities and for your country. 2. As an Asian State, we are especially gratified at the election of a man of your calibre, who is most ably suited to discharge the obligations of this renowned office. Please accept the sincerest congratulations of the people of the Syrian Arab Republic, who wish you well in your illustrious office and bear for the brother people of Afghanistan much good will and lasting friendship. 3.”

    1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)

14. “Certainly, if the second is indestructible, the first is no less indestructible; but this means simply that the second does not destroy the first, but instead exerts a perpetual influence on it, knocks perpetually at its door and perpetually makes itself heard and welcomed, yet conforming to the law which rules in that sphere." 101. Yes, when we understand that great truth, so admirably expressed by Croce, when willingly we allow ethics to knock continuously on the door of politics, reminding it of its existence, it is then that not only the problem of Palestine will be solved but the most crucial and complicated problems of mankind today.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

15. “Ideologically, it is a struggle to purify Judaism from the distortions, attritions and criminality of Zionism. History, the final and ultimate tribunal of mankind, will prove that Arab struggle will ultimately save Judaism from the clutches of Zionism. 100. Allow me, in ending, to quote the great Italian philosopher, Benedetto Croce, who had this to say on the subject of ethics and politics: "In fact, the phase of the State and of politics is a necessary and eternal phase, but it is a phase and not the whole; and the moral conscience and activity is another phase, no less necessary and eternal, which follows the first, proceeding from and returning to spiritual unity.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

16. “Anti-semitism, a sin of the Christian West, was never a sin of the Arab Muslim East, for far back in history and in recent time Jewish communities in the Arab world lived peacefully and in prosperity until the curse of Zionism upset their lives and our own. That is why we fight Zionism, a belonging to a plague of modern political ideologies, like Nazism and Fascism. The Arab struggle for Palestine is basically a struggle of a people for liberation, a people whose right to self-determination was denied, a people asking for nothing less than the right of self-determination, a people whose lands, territories, homes and farms have been stolen from them, and they are asking them back. In a word, it is a struggle for liberation from a brand of imperialism the like of which has never been known in history.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

17. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor freedman, neither male nor female; for all ye are one in Christ. If ye are of Christ, indeed ye are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise." 98. Zionism, on the other hand, is but a distortion of Judaism. Among the Jews themselves there arose, side by side with the rise of the Zionist movement, a great number of Jews who not only dissented from Zionism but criticized its tenets in unequivocal terms: the reform movement in Judaism and the orthodox movement, which made it very clear in their platforms and pronouncements — men like the late Judah Magnes, William Zuckerman, Sir Edwin Montagu, Elmer Berger and scores of others. 99.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

18. “We establish a fundamental distinction between Judaism and Zionism. To the Muslims, Abraham is the first Prophet, and Islam in one of its basic aspects is a return to the religious tenets of Abraham. To the Christians, Christianity as preached by Christ, himself a Jewish Prophet speaking primarily to the Jews, was a fulfilment and continuation of the laws of Moses. No apostle made this issue clearer than St. Paul himself, a great pillar of Christianity, who clearly states, in Romans II, chapter 11: "For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." To him the prophecies of the Bible for the return of the Messiah were fulfilled by the coming of Christ. This is made clear in his letter to the Galatians 3:26, 28 and 29, wherein he says: "For all ye are sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

19. “Within its geographical boundaries it can never be understood — it is only within history, within 4,000 years of history all assembled in one moment, the moment in which one should look at Jerusalem. In this city history is alive, speaking out of each of its stones. It is a history full of contradiction, full of tragedy, but it is a history that is revered and adored by all mankind. ... Within its walls it gathered the meanings of both the sea and the desert, two civilizing forces in eternal interaction, two primordial forces that in alternating rhythms have borne men to conquest and achievement. In this lies the mystery of its tragedy and also the mystery of its greatness." That is a specimen of modern Arabic literatures reflecting the deep suffering and torture of the Arab soul over the loss of Palestine. 97.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

20. “It will have been noticed by now that in discussing the problem of Palestine I did not use the word "Jewish", for to us Arabs, Muslims and Christians alike, Judaism is a divine religion that we respect and is a part of our tradition. Jerusalem is also a sacred city to us. Jabra Ibrahim Jabra, a young Arab who saw his house in the Katamon area of Jerusalem dynamited by Zionist gangs and his parents killed, who was able to escape to Arab lands, carried on his studies, published several books including two books already published in England, spoke of his native city of Jerusalem in an article published in the first week of this month. He said: "Jerusalem is not a mere place, it is also a time.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

21. “boycott, proclaimed by the Zionist labour movement in Palestine against the employment of Arab labour, a racial boycott: ’Apart from the political danger, I can’t put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to men of another people; and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: if it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we shall achieve at the end of time power in Eretz Israel? If this be the Messiah’ — said Ahad Ha-Am — I do not wish to see his coming." I wonder what Ahad Ha-Am would say if he had lived long enough to see Judaism turn into terrorism and manslaughter under Zionism. 96.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

22. “Twenty years later, on 9 July 1911, he wrote to a friend in Jaffa: ’As to the war against the Jews in Palestine, I am a spectator from afar with an aching heart, particularly because of the want of insight and understanding shown on our side to an extreme degree. As a matter of fact, it was evident twenty years ago that the day would come when the Arabs would stand up against us.’ "... In this spirit Ahad Ha-Am" — and this is the important point — "opposed the boycott which the Hebrews and the Jews on the whole applied to the Arabs. "In a letter of November 18, 1913 to Moshe Smilansky, a pioneer settler in Palestine, Ahad Ha-Am had protested against another form of ...”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

23. “They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelly, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination’. That was written in 1891 when the Zionist settlers formed a tiny minority in Palestine. ’We think’ Ahad Ha-Am warned, ’that the Arabs are all savages who live like animals and do not understand what is happening around. This is, however, a great error.’ "This error unfortunately has persisted ever since. Ahad Ha-Am did not cease to warn against it, not only for the sake of the Arabs but for the sake of Judaism and of Zion. He remained faithful to his ethical standard to the end.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

24. “ould never gather all the scattered Jews from the four corners of the world. Professor Kohn says: "The Bible foresaw this in-gathering for the days of the Messiah, when all problems would be solved in a regenerated mankind. To confound Messianic hopes with political potentialities must lead of necessity to moral and ultimately physical disaster." 95. Writing about Ahad Ha-Am, Professor Kohn goes on to say: "... He warned that the Jewish settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives by ugly actions: must meet them rather in the friendly spirit of respect. ’Yeti — these are the words of Ahad-Ha-Am — ’what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite: serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in freedom, and this change has awakened in their an inclination to despotism.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

25. “And while, under the impact of Zionist propaganda, the Arabs are blamed for their measures of self-defence, everyone forgets the Israel boycott of the Arabs, which started early in this country with the establishment of the early Jewish settlements in Palestine. Ahad Ha-Am, a pioneer of spiritual Zionism, whose name figures prominently in any history of Zionism — "Ahad" being a pen name for "Ginsburg" — laid his finger on the problem, which, according to Professor Hans Kohn, himself an American of the Jewish faith and a world authority on nationalism, for practical and ethical reasons alike was the fundamental though neglected problem of Zionism in Palestine — the Arab problem. From 1891, Ahad Ha-Am stressed that Palestine was not only a small land, it was not an empty one. It c?”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

26. “Those of us who were present here at the eighteenth session remember only too well the dramatic sessions of the Security Council, when the United States representative raised the question of the existence of USSR rockets in Cuba, and what followed. But, when the Arabs object to Israel getting into the nuclear club, their words fall on deaf ears. Verite en deca des Pyrenees, erreur au-dela. 94. Time and again the Zionist propaganda machine has spoken of the Arab boycott. The Israel lobby in Washington last June succeeded in extracting from the American Congress amendments to the law governing exports intended to render the Arab boycott of Israel ineffective. Thus, once more, the Arabs appear as aggressors.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

27. “Shimon Peres visited Paris recently "to convince France to build an additional nuclear reactor at Dimona". The United States, directly and indirectly, is helping Israel in this field. 92. The Zionist-Jews in Palestine lost no time. As soon as France announced in June 1959 that it was preparing to explode a bomb, they started pressing the French Ministry of Defence to build for them their atomic reactor as pledged. French and Zionist engineers and technicians completed their plans for the construction of the building in Dimona in the Negev in the early part of 1960. 93. It is thus understandable that, while Israel officials endorsed the principle of international inspection, they have opposed its implementation in Zionist- occupied territory in Palestine.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

28. “With regard to the atomic reactor that I mentioned, I think that not only the Arabs but this very Organization, which is striving for peace, and the leaders of the world community, who are doing their utmost to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, are, like ourselves, entitled to be warned of the facts. 89. The New York Times of 20 December 1960 reported that: "According to the United States sources, the Dimona Reactor is capable of turning out sufficient plutonium for a modest number of atomic bombs." 90. On 28 April 1964, The Times of London reported that "there is evidence that Israel in collusion with France may soon have nuclear weapons". 91. The Jewish Chronicle of London, an authoritative organ of the Zionist movement, revealed in its issue of 26 March 1965 that Mr.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

29. “They are as follows: area of Palestine under the Mandate, 10,429 square miles; area of Israel under the Partition Plan, 5,765 square miles; area of Israel today, 7,992 square miles. The area of Israel today shows an. increase of approximately 38 per cent over the area under the Partition Plan. 87. But this is only a partial picture. For the representatives here present who are not familiar with the names and boundaries outlined in this Zionist document, translated specifically, it means the following: the occupation beyond what Israel occupies now of southern Lebanon up till Sidon, of Southern Syria up till the gates of Damascus, and of the whole of Jordan. It is also important to remember the emphasis laid in this document on the rivers, their sources, which exist in Arab territories. 88.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

30. “The boundaries are sketched with the general economic needs and historic traditions of the country in mind, factors which necessarily must also be considered by the Special Commission in fixing the definite boundary lines. ... "The economic life of Palestine, like that of every other semi-arid country, depends on the available water supply. It is, therefore, of vital importance not only to secure all water resources already feeding the country, but also to be able to conserve and control them at their sources." 86. Some remarks on this document: the population of Palestine was at that time 90 per cent Arab; there were only 57,000 Jews there in 1917. The Jews owned in 1920 almost 2.5 per cent of the land area of Palestine. The figures which I shall mention below prove beyond any doubt Israel aggression in Palestine.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

31. “Here, again, representatives will find in the text of my speech as distributed a document submitted in 1919 by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference in Paris — a document which underlies the plans of Zionism for Palestine — from which it will be seen that almost 90 per cent of that plan was realized. But I should like to mention just one paragraph, which has a direct relationship to a problem that is now being raised. The document states: "The boundaries above outlined are what we consider essential for the necessary economic foundation of the country. Palestine must have its natural outlets to the seas and the control of its rivers and their headwaters.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

32. “Is it a mere chance, I may ask, that the French Ministry of Defense built in 1959-1960 the Dimona Atomic Reactor in Beersheba, in the Negev, as part of the 1956 secret deal between the Guy Mollet Government and Ben-Gurion and his henchmen; that West German, French and Belgian scientists have been working on it ever since; that the United States supplied it with heavy water this year? But enough about this for the time being, for I shall come to it later. 85. Israel is, furthermore, an expansionist State — however much the leaders of Zionism and Israel profess the contrary.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

33. “These are the "barbarians" about whom Herzl spoke and Zionism still speaks to the present day. 84. Further, this Jewish State was conceived by Herzl, in his own words, "to form a part of a wall of defense of Europe in Asia". The European Powers must undoubtedly rejoice at the establishment of such a State within Arab lands, to ensure, as is now being done, their strategic economic and oil interests. Surely, then, Israel is but an extension of Western imperialism. And what would the Western colonial Powers do but guarantee, as they are doing now, the existence of Israel, as foreseen by Herzl?”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

34. “What the founder of Zionism, Herzl, forgot here is that, when the Prophet Moses fled from Egypt, he found refuge with an Arab tribe, the Midianites, and with Jethro, the priest of Midian, an Arab tribe in Sinai — Moses' father-in-law, from whom he first heard about Yahwe, later called in the Bible "Jehovah". The very name of the one God that Moses preached to his followers was, as established beyond any doubt in Exodus, an Arab deity. Surely these Arabs must have been a special brand of barbarians, who taught Moses the idea of the one God — the pillar of Judaism. Thus Zionism paid the Arabs for their indebtedness to them. But here, again, I shall not dwell on this point at length. I am sure the Zionists cannot, at least, distort the words of the Bible.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

35. “Here, again, let me use the words of the father and founder of the State of Israel, Herzl himself, who wrote the following: "If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake the management of the finances of Turkey. We should there form a part of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact With all Europe, which would guarantee our existence?" Now, these few lines are worth pondering a great deal, because, to my knowledge, they are a classic definition of imperialism. 83. Note, first, the use of the word "barbarism". Obviously, the reference here is to the Arabs, because there were none but Arabs in Palestine at that time — not more than twenty thousand Jews.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

36. “All this calls for a classification of the Zionist strategy: when the Arabs objected, as they rightfully did, against the Balfour Declaration and later against the British Mandate, and when they defend their homeland against outside aggressors, they are themselves stamped aggressors. When the Arabs revolt against the partition of their homeland and the denial of their right to self-determination, they are described as defying the United Nations resolutions and also called aggressors. During this time, world Zionism, which cleverly engendered these various acts, appears to be peaceful and abiding by international law. But, surely, this game should at least be understood objectively and unemotionally. 82. What is the State of Israel? How was it conceived? What purpose did it have.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

37. “Again, not to use my own words, let me quote a Professor of International Relations at New York University, Donald C. Blaisdell, who, in a lecture entitled "Can responsible foreign policy be made democratically?", said the following: "How could the world justify the establishment of Israel in Palestine in the face of the majority of the indigenous population? It was done in the name of democratic self-determination." Clearly, then, the only people in the world that was denied the right to self-determination was the Arab people of Palestine. 81. If these facts are established beyond any doubt, and they are, how could the Arabs be asked to recognize the establishment of a State, in an integral part of their homeland, that was detached by sheer force, by international Zionist intrigues, pressure and distortion?”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

38. “The methods followed in enforcing those decisions, the partition resolutions, were no less immoral than the Balfour Declaration itself. The pressure brought, especially by the United States Government, to ensure the required number of votes in the General Assembly after its failure in the Political Committee, are now facts of history, well-known, to be recounted again. But I wish simply to refer here to what President Truman himself, who was instrumental in this whole manoeuvre, wrote about the unprecedented pressure to which he was subjected by the American leaders of Zionism in his memoirs. The sad death of the then courageous Secretary of War of the United States, Mr. James Forrestal, who was driven by the Zionists to commit suicide, is another tragic aspect of this whole situation. 80.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

39. “In answering this question I shall use the words of a prominent member of the British Labour Party, T. E. M. McKitterick, who wrote the following: "What brought Israel into existence was, in the end, not an agreed decision but the force of arms, and all that the United Nations was able to do afterwards was to take note of the fact and try to prevent any further change from being made by similar methods. The implication is a very far-reaching one — that a collective security organisation is bound by its very nature to favour the status quo, while the initiative for change comes not from agreement but from force. " 79. It is thus clear, by the words of an author in international affairs, that Israel was brought into existence by sheer force and aggression.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

40. “Our reply is that, whereas this illegal, unilateral, immoral declaration had been entered into the Mandate given to British over Palestine, and since this Mandate facilitated Jewish immigration to Palestine against the lawful will of the Arabs, and since this Jewish immigration enabled Zionism to establish a state within the State under the protection of the British Mandate and in conspiracy with it, and since the Zionists in Palestine drove out in a well-planned warfare the lawful Arab inhabitants of Palestine, we cannot forget or disregard this criminal act. We insist that it should be discussed and revealed again. 78. It might again be said that Israel is in existence. But here again the question arises how Israel ever came into existence.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

41. “We repeatedly assured them that our intentions towards them were entirely honourable and equitable ... "The responsibility for the tragedy that has overtaken the Palestine Arabs is shared by Britain with Germany and the United States. In setting himself to exterminate the Jews in Europe, Hitler played into Zionism's hands." 77. It might be said: what is the use now of going back to this old history — although Toynbee was writing in October 1964 — after the partition resolution?”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

42. “We followed up the Balfour Declaration by insisting on our being given a mandate for the administration of Palestine, and also insisting on having the Balfour Declaration written into the document. At the same time we acquiesced in this mandate being placed in the 'A' class, a type of mandate that committed the Mandatory Power to giving independence to the population of the mandated territory as soon as they were politically ripe for it. Since, at that date, the population of Palestine west of Jordan was 90 per cent Arab ... the fact that the Mandate for Palestine was an 'A' mandate was an implicit undertaking that, whatever the Balfour Declaration might mean, Palestine would eventually become an independent state with a decisive Arab majority in its population. "The Palestine Arabs did not trust British intentions.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

43. “As recently as October 1964, the great historian Arnold Toynbee wrote in International Affairs the following: "The Arabs' grievance against Britain for her treatment of Egypt from 1882 to 1956 has been surpassed, in intensity and in justification, only by their grievance against us for our treatment of Palestine since 1917. In whatever way the Balfour Declaration of 1917 is to be interpreted whatever may have been the meaning of a 'national home for the Jewish people' and of 'the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine' — we were taking it upon ourselves to give away something that was not ours to give. We Were promising rights of some kind in the Palestinian Arabs' country to a third party.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

44. “Nevertheless all explanations that were given for the Balfour Declaration afterwards did not contain the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. 75. That is why the Arabs, no matter what the Arab country to which they belong, live the tragedy of Palestine every day of their lives, for the Arabs have been victims of one of the greatest acts of aggression known in modern history. The result of these tyrannical acts is deeply felt just because it is related to a central part of the Arab homeland, organically connected with all other Arab lands. This tragedy has been deepened by the sufferings of the Arab refugees from Palestine and their losses, which are shared by every class in every Arab country. 76.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

45. “." Such statements, which were given time and again by the British Government proved to be nothing else but a smokescreen designed to appease the revolting Arabs. 73. Some light was shed on the integrity of British war-time pledges to the Arabs by Lord Balfour himself in a memorandum dated 11 August 1919, in which he wrote: "... so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate". 74. World Zionism, and Israel, which is but a partial expression of it, undoubtedly smile cynically now when we mention the Balfour Declaration and these developments.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

46. “They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine ... "... When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride ..”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

47. “Many explanations have been given for this Jewish national home; among them is the one contained in the White Paper of 1922, which states: "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English'. His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

48. “The discussions of the partition resolution, however, remain incomplete and inadequate unless and until we start with this strange Balfour Declaration. The promise to establish a national home for the Jews in Palestine was given by the British Government in 1917 which was not in Palestine, to a Jewish nation that did not exist, either in Palestine or outside, for there were Jews belonging to various nationalities and followers of Judaism as a religion. The Declaration was illegal, because the Arabs were never a party to it, and Great Britain had no authority to promise a land that it did not possess, against the will of the lawful inhabitants of the land. The Declaration was also immoral, having been negotiated between the British Government and world Zionism to ensure mutual interests to the detriment of the Arabs. 72.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

49. “It has become somewhat fashionable among some commentators to express a kind of boredom over the legacy of resentment against Britain and France spawned by the 1918 betrayals of the Arabs, which included the Balfour Declaration. But, unless the full measure of what was done with respect to the Arabs in those years is appreciated, then understanding of all that followed is impossible, and equally impossible will be any solution contemplated now by the United Nations. 71. The Balfour Declaration, which promised to the Zionists the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, has been completely forgotten. People now do not talk about it at all. They start with the partition resolutions of 1947. All this is but a part of Zionist strategy and scheming.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)

50. “It would be cumbersome to trace out their details, but I am only, mentioning this figure, 985 meetings, to show the extent of the involvement of the United Nations in this question which, nevertheless, remains unsolved today. 69. The first question that duly arises is, why is it that, in spite of all these meetings and the scores of resolutions that have been adopted by the General Assembly and the principal organs, the problem remains unsolved today? The answer libs undoubtedly in the fact that the roots of the problem were disregarded. 70. Basically, the Arab people of Palestine, a national and historical reality, which should be acknowledged by international law and dealt with as such; have been completely and purposely disregarded as far back as 1917.”

    1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)