Lebanon, 1969

85. Madam President, on behalf of the delegation of Lebanon

and on my own behalf, I should like to offer you our

sincere congratulations on your election to the presidency

of this twenty-fourth session of the General Assembly of

the United Nations and to express our hope that this

Assembly will work for peace among the peoples, in

accordance with the principles of its Charter.

86. I also desire to pay a tribute to the memory of His

Excellency Mr. Emilio Arenales, who presided so ably over

the twenty-third session of the General Assembly.

87. Madam President and fellow representatives, I address

you on behalf of a country which knows that its existence,

its independence and the freedoms to which it is passionately

devoted can be safeguarded only under the rule of an

international morality under which law is respected, aggression

is outlawed as a means of pressure, States reject armed

force as an argument in the settlement of their disputes,

international relations are based on justice, mutual respect,

the spirit of co-operation and an absolute regard for peace,

under which, in short, nations live in conformity with

humane and civilized principles.

88. During the journey which brought me here, my

thoughts more than once went back to the year 1945 when,

in San Francisco, I participated with the Lebanese delegation,

together with the delegations of fifty other countries,

in the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations. That

was a time of great hopes. In less than thirty years the spirit

of domination and racism had plunged the world into two

wars, one more devastating and murderous than the other.

The victorious coalition wished to open up a new era in

history, an era in which nations, whether powerful or small,

would live in peace and with equal rights, when men would

at last be free from the anguish of war, from the fear of

losing their birthplaces, their ancestral tombs and their

homelands, of being enslaved or persecuted because of their

race, religion or thinking.

89. Such were our hopes and our ideal when drafting the

Charter and establishing the organs of the United Nations.

The General Assembly and the Security Council represented

for us the highest courts of justice and the

uncompromising guardians of the new international order.

90. All those who lived through those historic moments

no doubt recall the climate of confidence and hope which

prevailed throughout our labours. Would it be an exaggeration

to say that today, after the many sufferings to which

mankind has been incessantly exposed, there is unfortunately

a danger that these sentiments may soon give way

to disillusionment and disenchantment?

91. Although the United Nations has many happy achievements

to its credit, the fundamental problems on which the

future of peace. security, justice and human well-being

depend still confront us in ail their magnitude and in all

their tragic scope. Among all these evils, may I touch more

particularly upon the one that most directly concerns my

own country, namely, the conflict in the Middle East?

92. As early as 1949, in order to fulfil the “messianic

destiny of the people of Israel”, more than a million

Palestinians were expelled from their homes and land by

terrorism, violence and fire. For more than twenty years

these “refugees” have been living in poverty, bitterness and

nostalgia for their usurped fatherland. But today some

profess to be shocked because these people have rebelled

and because resistance to oppression is being organized and

is becoming a key factor in the problem—a new factor

which cannot and should not in any way be underestimated.

93. In 1967, the June war led to the occupation of the

whole of Jerusalem and the West Bank of the Jordan, as

well as Sinai and the Golan Heights; And on 21 August

1969 came the burning of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which was

deeply resented by both Christendom and Islam. Was not

this burning, as was stated recently by the Algerian

representative in the Security Council [1508th meeting],

“the tragic accomplishment that must follow the complacency

of the international community“?

94. It would take too long to cite the decisions of the

General Assembly and of the Security Council which have

remained dead letters for Israel. This contempt for the

United Nations seems to be the policy of Israel. The

peaceful statements of its leaders are intended solely to dull

the vigilence of international opinion, Behind them is

visible a desire for territorial expansion; an arrogant

mystique of greatness and domination is inspiring Israel’s

policy of force and dictating its behaviour.

95. Among the Israeli leaders, General Dayan seems to be

the one who best illustrates this policy by the statements he

makes from time to time and which at least have the merit

of being frank. From these statements one could compile a

genuine and highly enlightening anthology. However, I shall

quote only two which seem to me particularly significant.

The first was published in the Israeli newspaper Haolam

Haze of 8 July 1968. General Dayan stated the following:

“Our fathers got as far as the borders recognized in the

partition plan of 1947. Our generation got as far as the

"borders of 1949. But the generation of the Six Days War

was able to get as far as Suez, Jordan and the Golan

Heights. This is not the end, for beyond the present

cease-fire lines, there will still be new lines beyond the

Jordan, perhaps as far as Lebanon and perhaps also as far

as central Syria.”

96. General Dyan’s statements have been transformed into

deeds by the Israeli attacks which have been incessantly

directed against our territory ever since the attack on Beirut

international airport on 28 December 1968.

97. In this connexion, Israel has unilaterally denounced

the General Armistice Agreement between Lebanon and

Israel of 23 March 1949. However, contrary to the

statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel

in the Assembly, Lebanon considers that Agreement to be

still valid. Article VIII of the Agreement provides, in fact,

that it will remain in force until a peaceful settlement has

been reached and that it can be denounced only with the

agreement of the two parties.

98. In another statement, quoted by the Israeli newspaper

Maariv on 30 April 1968, the Israeli Defence Minister said:

“It may be possible to arrive at peace treaties between

ourselves and the Arab countries, but the Arabs are asking

a very high price. I pray to heaven that that day will never

come.”

99. It is statements of that kind by Israeli officials which

are responsible for the whole trend of domestic and foreign

policy in the Near and Middle East. It is this policy of

aggression and conquest, pursued by Israel with the

arrogance of one confident of impunity, that is adding to

the toll of victims, piling up acts of destruction and

plunging the whole region into violence and insecurity. One

must be blind, or else simply refuse to see, not to realize

that this policy can lead only to a general conflagration

which might destroy the world.

100. Nevertheless, there was recently an exceptional

opportunity of reaching a peaceful and honourable settlement

of the Middle East problems on the basis of Security

Council resolution 242 (1967), dated 22 November 1967.

The two Arab States most directly concerned in the

conflict accepted this international instrument, which had

been unanimously adopted by the Council, and co-operated

loyally with the Secretary-General’s Personal Representative

in an endeavour to find ways and means of implementing it.

The United Arab Republic and Jordan have given

proof of their extreme good faith with regard to the

Security Council’s resolution; and Lebanon can only

reaffirm its solidarity with these States and press for the

full implementation of this text. By adopting a negative

attitude, Israel is deliberately sabotaging all chances of

peace; it continues unremittingly to defy international law

and the decisions of the Assembly. Furthermore, it dares to

demand, as the fruit of its military victory, security for its

boundaries, to the detriment of the security of the other

States of the Middle East.

101. In his address to the General Assembly [1755th

meeting], the president of the United States spoke of

secure and recognized boundaries. However, you are not

unaware of the fact that boundaries secure from threats or

acts of violence are no longer geographical and that no

border today can resist the power of modern weapons.

Secure boundaries are rather of a moral character; what

ensures them is the spirit of peace, the desire for peace and

respect for international law.

102. To preserve peace, to promote the development of

every nation and of every human being, we must endeavour

to overcome evil instincts so that love for peace and justice,

tolerance and the sense of brotherhood may triumph

among men.

103. This is Lebanon’s moral code. Recently, for example,

his Excellency, the President of the Republic of Lebanon,

made the following statement:

“Lebanon's role in the Arab world and in the world at

large is so important and so necessary that any aggression

against our territory and against cur national and our

human mission is an aggression against those values

without which there can be neither life nor progress for

mankind as a whole.

“Any sign of indifference to our just cause an the part

of any State, large or small, condemns that same State

which is guilty of it. History will judge harshly those who

are indifferent or hostile, whoever they may be. And not

only history but also the inexorable march of future

events.”