Jordan, 1969

27. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on behalf of which I have

the honour of addressing this distinguished gathering today,

sincerely welcomes the election of the President of this General Assembly.

Her election demonstrates the Assembly’s confidence in her

high qualities as well as its regard for her country, Liberia.

28. I would also take this occasion to pay a special tribute

to the late President, His Excellency, Mr. Emilio Arenales,

for the ability and consummate skill with which he presided

over the deliberations of the General Assembly at its

twenty-third session.

29. I should also like to acknowledge the valuable service

of our excellent and highly distinguished Secretary-General

and his associates in the cause of the United Nations and its

accomplishments. His record has been one of able leadership

and dedication.

30. This year witnessed a culmination of the technological

revolution. Man’s eternal quest for the new and unknown

has led him to the highest mountains and the deepest ocean

trenches. This year it has led him across the vacuum of

space to another world. The universe has become more than

ever one unit, and for a moment all mankind were kin. We

must pay the highest tribute to all those brave and creative

people who made this remarkable achievement possible,

and congratulate the countries which invested enormous

human and material resources in this greatest of accomplishments.

31. Notwithstanding man’s remarkable achievements on

his own planet in the fields of technology, education,

communication, science and industry, man has done much

to despoil his own world. Injustices on earth, whether in

the political, economic or social realm, are still widespread.

The gap between the poor and the rich and between

comfort and misery continues to widen. Basic human rights

continue to be violated. People yearning for freedom have

not been enabled to practice their right of self-determination.

Colonial policies, military conquest and occupation

are still practiced. On the part of the international

community a climate of indifference seems to prevail. But

the oppressed cannot be indifferent to wrong. Liberation

movements, particularly in Asia and Africa, have polarized

the masses in their struggle for freedom, independence and

progress. The gallant people of Viet-Nam have paid every

price and made every sacrifice to attain their freedom and

to achieve a unity which would be universally recognized. It

is time they were given that right.

32. For over twenty years the problem of Korea has been

before the United Nations General Assembly. We believe

that more serious consideration should be given to this

important problem. Both parties should be given an equal

hearing, which may contribute to the reunification of that

divided land.

33. The present régime in Rhodesia continues to defy all

General Assembly and Security Council injunctions. We

believe that more effective measures under Chapter VII of

the Charter have to be invoked.

34. One other disturbing question is racial discrimination

in the Republic of South Africa. It goes against human

dignity to look on at the people of South Africa continuing

to suffer as victims of the most inhuman practices.

35. On the soil of the African continent the great nation

of Nigeria is still struggling to defend its unity and

territorial integrity. We hope that the people of Nigeria will

overcome their present difficulties and resume their march

towards progress.

36. The problems and conflicts in which man is involved

are ideological, economic, political and moral. There is,

however, a basic conflict in our present-day world which is

continuous and unending. It is that between man and the

forces of injustice and oppression. Every day men all over

the world sacrifice their lives combating those forces in the

cause of justice. It is tragic that in most conflicts of this

nature the highest body of human organization has found

itself indifferent or impotent to stand on the side of right.

37. The Middle East is one such case. There, certainly as a

result of twenty-one years of indifference, the United

Nations finds itself today more impotent, more entangled,

and more than ever tragically remote from ensuring justice

and peace. For over two years now, the United Nations has

been witnessing an unveiled and ruthless foreign occupation

of the national soil of three Member States of the United

Nations, the result of premeditated armed aggression. For

over two years, substantial parts of Jordan, the United Arab

Republic and Syria have been under occupation. The

occupied areas, including the holiest spot where the world’s

most cherished shrines are located, have undergone physical

destruction and change. Villages in the occupied areas have

been bulldozed and obliterated by the occupying forces.

Masses of people have been dispossessed, expelled from

their homes, arrested, insulted, tortured or terrorized. The

social, cultural and economic life of the civilian population

under occupation has been disrupted and shattered. Israeli

military arrogance has expressed itself in daily shelling and

bombardment against the civilian population beyond the

cease-fire areas. The Israeli authorities have deliberately

defied all efforts of the United Nations to intervene

effectively or usefully on behalf of justice and peace. The

mission of the Secretary-General’s Special Representative,

empowered and authorized by Security Council resolution

242 (1967), was obstructed by Israeli intransigence. This

Security Council resolution attempting to outline a

balanced solution to the problem was ignored and flouted.

The attempt of the permanent members of the Security

Council to study the problem and prevent further deterioration

into all-out war, was bitterly opposed. The rapid

escalation of Israeli demands went along with the escalating

expressions of their determination to retain the occupied

areas and to finalize their annexation. Continuing measures

with the aim of absorbing or “de-Arabizing” the areas

occupied proved beyond any doubt that Israel wanted the

Jarring mission and the procedural dialectic it continued to

propose to be a mere umbrella behind which expansion and

annexation could be conveniently achieved. Professing

peace verbally for propaganda purposes, Israel continued to

sabotage peace on the ground.

38. In the meantime, a part of the international community has,

unfortunately, fallen into the serious error of

concentrating on trying to work out a method for a

political settlement between the Arab States and Israel, but

forgetting the fundamental issue, which violates the Charter

and all rules and norms of present international life. The

issue—the real issue—in the present Middle East crisis is

Israel’s military occupation of the national soil of three

Member States and the Israeli armed aggression which

continues to exist in defiance of world demands and

pronouncements. To insist that the problem lies in the

difficulty of finding a way towards an agreement between

Israel and the Arab States is indeed a grave error which

amounts to an endorsement of the state of aggression which

continues to exist.

39. Yet, on our part, we have not been unaware of the sad

facts in today’s international life. We have also been fully

conscious of our own responsibility towards peace in our

own region. We have, therefore, respected the decision of

the international community and accepted Security Council

resolution [242 (1967)] of 22 November 1967 on the

problem, and sincerely co-operated in the efforts for its

implementation. We have understood it as it was intended

to be: a resolution providing for ending the occupation,

ensuring withdrawal of the occupying forces, and establishing

a just and lasting peace. Israel, on its part, has made

every effort to distort the intent of the resolution and

obstruct its implementation. Allow me to give you some

instances of such attempts.

40. Israel has taken the position of conditioning withdrawal

upon the establishment of so-called agreed boundaries,

thus completely violating the terms and the spirit of

the resolution, and suggesting clearly that it is attempting

to gain Arab territory beyond the lines of 4 June 1967.

What the Foreign Minister of Israel said in this regard in this

hall on 8 October 1968 [1686th meeting], and repeated

several times thereafter, represented a policy destructive to

the hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement. His theory

about withdrawal—a word he never utters—shows clearly

that an establishment of the lines to which withdrawal may

take place is subject to the agreement of Israel, or indeed to

its veto. Since Israel is an occupying force, this means that

it can stay in occupation in the event any proposed

boundaries do not satisfy its territorial designs. This Israeli

position, which is a basic impediment to the achievement of

any progress in the efforts towards peace, has repeatedly

been emphasized and affirmed by Israeli official spokesmen.

41. In this connexion, let me stress that any interpretation

of the November 1967 resolution which confines Israeli

withdrawal to boundaries to be established by an agreement

of the parties introduces language and a meaning alien to

the resolution. It serves to undermine the basic principle of

non-acquisition of territory by armed force. As long as this

position is taken, there is no hope of success in achieving a

peaceful settlement. Likewise, a clear commitment on

complete withdrawal is an essential and indispensable

prerequisite for any constructive future steps on the road to

peace. It is unfortunate that the Israeli position has found

acceptance by some others. The attitude of the United

States, as far as we know, on this most important point has

not made it possible for the talks of the four Powers to bear

fruitful results.

42. I feel I should explain our position, compared with

that of Israel, on one or two other subjects in order to show

how positive our position has been, and how negative and

obstructive has been the Israeli stand. On 24 March 1969 I

sent to Ambassador Gunnar Jarring my written answers to

his questions of 8 March on certain specific matters.

Regarding his question whether Jordan would accept the

establishment of demilitarized zones as a guarantee of the

territorial inviolability and political independence of the

States in the area, I gave the following reply on behalf of

my Government:

“We do not believe that the establishment of demilitarized

zones is a necessity. However, Jordan will not

oppose the establishment of such zones if they are astride

the boundaries.”

And I added:

“In case demilitarized zones are established, Jordan

accepts that such zones be supervised and maintained by

the United Nations.”

43. Against this clear written reply, the answer of 2 April

by the Israeli Foreign Minister, which was then made

known, was vague and evasive. Mr. Eban said:

“The effective guarantee for the territorial inviolability

and political independence of States lies in the strict

observance by the Governments of their treaty obligations.

In the context of peace providing for full respect

for the sovereignty of States and the establishment of

agreed boundaries, other security measures may be

discussed by the contracting Governments.”

44. Here again, on this point, the position of the United

States lacked objectivity. It offered a proposal to establish

exclusively on the Arab side the demilitarized zones

envisaged by the resolution. It suggested that demilitarized

zones should be established consisting of the territory from

which Israel withdrew. If this means anything, it means that

military occupation is to be rewarded.

45. On the question of the “refugees“, the people who

own nearly every bit of the soil on which Israel itself has

been established, and who were driven out by force of

arms, Jordan took a very natural and reasonable position.

We made it clear that a just settlement of the refugee

problem was embodied in paragraph 11 of General Assembly

resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, which, since

its adoption, has been reaffirmed repeatedly at each and

every session of the Assembly. Every year the General

Assembly has emphasized the right of the Palestinian Arabs

to repatriation and compensation. In our reply to

Mr. Jarring we added that if a plan on the basis of that

paragraph were presented to the parties concerned, its

acceptance by the parties and the declaration of their

intention to implement it in good faith, with adequate

guarantees for its full implementation, would make possible

the implementation of the other provisions of resolution of

22 November 1967.

46. Israel’s position was, in effect, that the successive and

repeated United Nations resolutions on the Palestinian

refugees should be disregarded and the problem reduced to

one of international charity.

47. We accepted each and every provision of the Security

Council resolution of 22 November. We agreed to end the

state of belligerency in return for complete withdrawal of

Israeli forces from all territories occupied since 5 June

1967. And in view of our past experience with Israel, and

its renunciation of the Protocol of Lausanne of 12 May

1949 and the four Armistice Agreements it signed the same

year with the Arab States directly concerned, we maintain

that the Security Council should be the guarantor of any

instruments defining the obligations of the parties under

the Security Council resolution. In view of our past

experience with Israel, only such commitments as are

guaranteed by the Security Council can be binding and

irrevocable.

48. So far, all our peaceful efforts have been wasted. That

is because Israel does not seem to be after peace, but after

territory. Every day it becomes clearer that Israel is after

Arab Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Syrian Heights and

substantial parts of the West Bank and Sinai.

49. Jerusalem is the best illustration of this fact. As early

as 4 July 1967 [resolution 2253 (ES-V)] the General

Assembly declared invalid all measures taken by Israel to

annex the Holy City and called upon Israel to rescind them

and to desist forthwith from taking any action which would

alter the status of Jerusalem. This was emphasized time and

again by the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Both organs reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility

of territorial acquisition by military force.

50. However, Israel chose to disregard all those resolutions.

It razed to the ground whole quarters in the Holy

City. It expelled secular as well as religious leaders. It

forcibly evicted hundreds of Arabs to make room for Israeli

immigrants. It established Israeli settlements on Arab lands.

It took further legislative measures to complete its unilateral

and illegal annexation of Jerusalem.

51. The Security Council, in resolution 267 (1969) of

3 July 1969, again censured all those measures in the

strongest terms. But Israel’s attitude did not change. It

continued to disregard the will of the international community

and to defy the authority of the United Nations.

52. On 21 August 1969 the Arabs and Moslems, and the

world at large, were shocked by the news of the burning of

Al Aqsa mosque. The Moslem world reacted with outrage,

pain and indignation. Voices within Israel called for the

rebuilding of the Temple in place of Al Aqsa. The world

today is witnessing a threat to the Holy Places in Jerusalem;

a threat to an historical and cultural heritage; a threat to

monuments of tolerance and faith and to international

peace and security.

53. It was against that background that twenty-five

Moslem countries, Members of the United Nations, asked

for an urgent meeting of the Security Council which last

week adopted another strongly worded resolution

[271 (1969)] against Israel. The twenty-five countries are

meeting today in Morocco at the highest level to consider

the situation.

54. Jordan, with the international community on its side,

considers all Israeli measures in Jerusalem invalid and

illegal. Jerusalem is an integral part of my country. It is part

of the occupied territory from which Israel has been called

upon to withdraw. For many centuries our people have

protected and preserved, with tolerance and the utmost

veneration, the Holy City and its Holy Places. Christians,

Moslems and Jews enjoyed free access to and free worship

in the city of peace. Conflict and prejudice are new to

Jerusalem. Israel has come with an invading and racist

ideology which has disrupted the peace and tolerance of all

the Holy Land in recent decades, in the name of religion,

although completely alien to the noble spirit of all universal

religions. When Israeli withdrawal has been affected, Jerusalem

should regain its peace and tolerance. And we in

Jordan will continue to make every effort to ensure

freedom of access and freedom of worship to all religions

and to all believers in God.

55. It may be asked: what are the motives for Israel’s

present policy? What is Israel’s present strategy designed to

achieve? One can define two main features of Israel’s

present military and political strategy. The first is to oppose

any United Nations or big-Power intervention in the

problem while trying to keep the attention of the United

Nations and world public opinion on a game of deceptive

slogans, procedural tactics and pretensions of readiness to

work for peace without any genuine commitment to the

requirements of peace. In the meantime, while Israel

continues to engage the United Nations in those prolonged

delaying tactics, it moves on as rapidly as it can in changing

the situation on the ground, absorbing the areas under

occupation and preparing to face the world with a new fait

accompli, a new expansion.

56. That is why Israel has systematically avoided commitment

on the substance of the Security Council resolution

[242 (1967)] on complete withdrawal and on the

recognition of the Arab people of Palestine. That is also

why, in the meantime, it has annexed Jordanian Arab

Jerusalem, planted its settlements throughout the occupied

areas and gradually made public its claims to territorial

expansion. With the situation as it is, the slogan of

negotiations advanced by Israel is clearly meaningless.

57. Secondly, Israel’s strategy has been to keep up

continuous daily military attacks against the Arab countries

on the other side of the cease-fire line, making no

distinction between military and civilian targets. Israel has

conducted daily heavy aerial and ground shelling against

densely inhabited towns and villages in various parts of

Jordan, killing civilians, including women and children,

using napalm and other destructive weapons. It has destroyed

vital economic installations, irrigation projects,

canals, bridges and highways in a systematic and vicious

way. The same tactics are applied against the other Arab

countries directly adjacent to the occupied areas. The goal

of these tactics is to put the greatest possible pressure on

those Arab countries in order to force them to surrender

their rights.

58. There can be no other analysis of Israel’s strategy and

policy in the past two years or more. We have ample

evidence of this in what we see now. We have ample

evidence in Israel’s record in the area from the days when

the Zionist nucleus in Palestine was the embryo of the

would-be Israel up to this day. The present policies of Israel

in the existing crisis have to be examined in the context of

years of similar tactics of phased expansion and of diverting

attention within the United Nations while establishing one

fait accompli after another by the use of force and at the

expense of justice and the rights of the people of the area.

59. Futile and unrealistic as this Israeli strategy may be,

even in achieving Israel’s own goals, it is only to be

expected. It is not understandable, however, that some big

Powers, with primary responsibility for international peace

and with vast interests in our area, should support this

Israeli strategy or find themselves powerless before it.

Instead of bringing peace closer, this policy has driven

peace farther away than at any time in the past. I must

refer, in this regard, to the recent delivery by the United

States to Israel of the heaviest types of destructive

weapons, the F-4 Phantom jets after the Skyhawk fighter-bombers,

at a time when Israel occupies vast regions of the

Arab countries, at a time when Israel enjoys superiority in

the air and at a time when its air raids have become the

order of the day. I must say that this measure on the part

of the United States can in no way be justified.

60. Instead of bringing about acquiescence on the part of

the Arabs—surrender of their rights under pressure—this

policy has bred resistance, resentment and a revolutionary

spirit engulfing the whole Arab world. Resistance within

the occupied areas and around them is vigorously growing

and will not end short of on rights of the people

hit by aggression and occupation. The young men and

women in the occupied areas who are offering their lives

every day in resistance are young patriots who love their

country and are willing to die for it. They have decided

their ultimate destination; and, in their march to seek life

through death, no authority can prevent them from

reaching their destination. These gallant young men represent

the spirit of the young in all the Arab countries.

Occupation, injustice and outside encouragement to both

do not breed surrender under the guise of realism but

revolution. The popular explosions in the area and the

increasing identification in the public eye of United States

interests with Israeli aggression reflect that fact.

61. The outcome of the deliberations on the crisis of the

Middle East during this General Assembly session may

determine the future course of events in the Middle East.

No one would claim that the Middle East nowadays enjoys

a peaceful life; yet war has been averted so far only by the

hope that the decisions of the United Nations will be

effective and that the Powers primarily responsible for the

maintenance of peace and security will see to it that a just

and peaceful settlement is reached. Once those two factors

collapse war becomes inevitable. It may possibly be one war

or a series of wars—wars of devastation. The area needs

peace and construction, not war and destruction.

62. The Israeli air raids being daily launched successively

against Arab positions, towns and inhabited areas are

becoming a source of pride to Israel. My country and my

people, partly occupied and partly a target for daily Israeli

shelling and air attacks, are determined not to yield in the

defence of their right. Moreover, a new-born nation is

emerging. It is emerging from amidst the ruins of the past,

from the darkness of the refuge and the exile and from the

ashes in which a few sparks have been left and may cause a

blasting fire. I speak of the children of Palestine.

63. In keeping up their air raids against our lands and our

people, the Israelis declare that they want to give the Arabs

a “lesson“. Indeed, the lessons which may be useful to

Israel, and not to anybody else, should be those given by

similar people in similar conditions where might is dying

every day on the soil of freedom. After all, one eternal fact

remains: it is not force of arms which will determine the

issue, as an Israeli leader once put it, but force of right. The

lesson which Israel, and nobody else, must learn is that its

grasp on the occupied Arab territories will one day fail. One

day its reliance on its armed superiority will prove useless.

One day it will wake up to see that the chance of peace it

was given at a certain stage may not be given again.