Jarring Mission report (1970)

''' XII. THE WAR OF ATTRITION AND CEASE FIRE'''

27. The Jarring Mission, phase II, report to the Security Council by Secretary-General U. Thant, S/10070, 4 January 1971.


 * The activities of the Secretary-General's Special Representative for the Middle East from 27 November 1968 to June 1970, as well as the correspondence relating to the suspension and the resumption of the talks in late 1970, are covered in the following report:

Activities of the Special Representative from 27 November 1968 to June 1970.

28. It has been the hope of Ambassador Jarring, in submitting his questions, that the replies might show certain encouraging features which might make it possible to invite the parties for a series of meetings between them and him at some mutually convenient place.

Unfortunately, the replies were in general a repetition of attitudes already expressed to Ambassador Jarring on numerous occasions from the beginning of his mission. They showed continued serious divergencies between the Arab States and Israel both as regards the interpretation to be given to the Security Council resolution and as to the procedures for putting its provisions into effect.

29. Ambassador Jarring was regretfully forced to conclude, with my agreement, that the conditions for convening a useful series of meetings at that time did not exist ...

32. On 3 April 1969, the Permanent Representatives of France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America began a series of meetings on the Middle East question, which have continued at various intervals up to the present time. After each such meeting, the Chairman reported to me on the substance of the discussions and I kept Ambassador Jarring informed.

The attempt to hold discussions under the Special Representative's auspices (June 1970 - 4 January 1971)

33. In June 1970, the Government of the United States of America proposed to the Governments of Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic that they should each advise Ambassador Jarring as follows:

(a) that having accepted and indicated their willingness to carry out resolution 242 in all its parts, they will designate representatives to discussions to be held under his auspices, according to such procedure and at such places and times as he may recommend, taking into account as appropriate each side's preference as to method of procedure and previous experience between the parties;

(b) that the purpose of the aforementioned discussions is to reach agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace between them based on (1) mutual acknowledgement by the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Israel of each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence, and (2) Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, both in accordance with resolution 242;

(c) that, to facilitate his task of promoting agreement as set forth in resolution 242, the parties will strictly observe, effective 1 July, at least until 1 October, the cease-fire resolutions of the Security Council.

34. Having been informed by the United States Government that the States concerned had accepted its peace initiative, I invited Ambassador Jarring to return immediately to Headquarters, where he arrived on 2 August...

I was informed by the United States Representative that his Government had received the acceptance of the Governments of the United Arab Republic and Israel to a standstill cease-fire for a period of ninety days from 2200 GMT on the same day. Ambassador Jarring and I had previously been informed by Secretary of State Rogers that his Government would take responsibility for organizing the standstill cease-fire.

35. Ambassador Jarring at once entered into contact with the parties and, after considering their views on the time and place of the discussions, on 21 August 1970 addressed to them invitations to take part in discussions opening at New York on 25 August 1970. He met on the appointed day with representatives of each of the parties. However, Ambassador Tekoah, who had been designated by Israel as its representative for the initial phase of the talks, then stated that he had been instructed by his Government to return to Israel for consultations. On his return on 8 September, he communicated to Ambassador Jarring the following decision of his Government:


 * "Israel's acceptance of the United States peace initiative according to its decision of 4 August 1970, and the appointment of a representative to the talks under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring are still in effect.


 * "The Government of Egypt has gravely violated the cease-fire standstill agreement, and this violation is continuing without let-up.


 * "The strictest observance of the cease-fire standstill agreement is one of the central elements of the American peace initiative and of the talks under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring.


 * "Therefore, so long as the cease-fire standstill agreement is not observed in its entirety, and the original situation restored, Israel will not be able to participate in these talks".

38. On 30 December, Ambassador Jarring received in Moscow a message from the Foreign Minister of Israel in which the latter informed him of the readiness of the Government of Israel to resume its participation in the talks.

Questions submitted by Ambassador Gunnar Jarring to the Arab Governments and Israel

Specific lists of questions based on the following general list were submitted by Ambassador Jarring to the Governments of the United Arab Republic on 5 March of Jordan on 8 March of Israel on 9 March and of Lebanon on 14 March 1969.

A. The questions

1. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) accept Security Council resolution 242 (1967) for implementation for achieving a peaceful and accepted settlement of the Middle East question in accordance with the provisions and principles contained in the resolution?

2. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) agree to pledge termination of all claims or states of belligerency with Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Republic (Israel)?

3. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) agree to pledge respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Jordan, Lebanon, and the United Arab Republic (Israel)?

4. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) accept the right of Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Republic (Israel) to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force?

5. If so, what is the conception of secure and recognized boundaries held by Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic)?

6. Does Israel agree to withdraw its armed forces from territories occupied by it in the recent conflict?

7. Does the United Arab Republic agree to guarantee freedom of navigation for Israel through international waterways in the area, in particular:

(a) through the Straits of Tiran, and

(b) through the Suez Canal?

8. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) agree that, if a plan for the just settlement of the refugee problem is worked out and presented to the parties for their consideration, the acceptance in principle of such a plan by the parties and the declaration of their intention to implement it in good faith constitute sufficient implementation of this provision of the Security Council resolution to justify the implementation of the other provisions?

9. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) agree that the territorial inviolability and political independence of the States and the area should be guaranteed:

(a) by the establishment of demilitarized zones;

(b) through additional measures?

10. Does Israel agree that such demilitarized zones should include areas on its side of its boundaries?

11. Does Jordan agree that a demilitarized zone should be established in Jordanian territory from which Israel armed forces have been withdrawn?

12. Does the United Arab Republic agree that a demilitarized zone should be established:

(a) at Sharm el-Sheikh;

(b) in other parts of the Sinai peninsula?

13. Does Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) agree that demilitarization of such zones should be supervised and maintained by the United Nations?

14. Would Israel (Jordan, Lebanon, United Arab Republic) accept as a final act of agreement on all provisions a mutually signed multilateral document which would incorporate the agreed condition for a just and lasting peace?

B. Reply of the Government of Israel

(Handed to Ambassador Jarring in Jerusalem by the Minister for Foreign Affaris on 2 April 1969.)

Dear Ambassador Jarring,

Israel's position on all the subjects raised in your 11 questions has been stated in detail in my address to the General Assembly of 8 October 1968, and in the memoranda presented to you on 15 October 1968, and 4 November 1968.

I now enclose specific replies in an affirmative spirit to the questions as formulated. It is my understanding that on the basis of the answers received from the three Governments you propose to pursue further mutual clarifications in an effort to promote agreement on all the matters at issue in in accordance with your mandate. We are ready to join in this process at any appropriate place.

Israel's statements of attitude, including its replies to these questions, has taken into account recent developments in Arab policy including the speeches recently delivered by President Nasser and other Arab leaders. We have noted the specific and emphatic reiteration of their refusal to make peace with Israel, to recognize Israel, to negotiate with Israel, to cease terrorist attacks on Israel or to admit the possibility of sovereign co-existence in any field. It would appear at this time that the effective negation by the UAR of the principles of the Charter and of the Security Council's Resolution is obvious and vehement. We hope that this policy, to which effect is given every day, will change; but these authoritative statements have caused deep concern and have intensified the tension which we would have wished to see relieved.

It is also our view that highly publicized encounters by four member States have weakened the attention which should have been concentrated on the efforts of the parties themselves to move towards agreement. They are causing a duplication and dispersal of effort. They have also encouraged a wrong impression in some quarters that a solution can be sought outside the region and without its Governments. Israel recognizes your mission as the authoritative international framework within which peace between the States in the Middle East should be promoted.

I recall the idea which we discussed some weeks ago that the Foreign Ministers of the three Governments should meet with you at a suitable place to pursue the promotion of agreement. As you will remember, .I reacted positively to this idea. I wish to re-affirm that Israel will continue to cooperate with you in the fulfilment of your mission.

Yours sincerely, Signed Abba Eban

Answer to Question One:

Israel accepts the Security council Resolution (242) for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace, to be reached by negotiation and agreements between the Governments concerned. Implementation of agreements should begin when agreement has been concluded on all their provisions.

Answer to Question Two:

It is the Arab States, not Israel, which claimed and originated states of belligerency. They declared themselves for two decades to be in a state of unilateral war with Israel. It is therefore primarily incumbent upon them to terminate the state of war with Israel.

On the establishment of peace with its Arab neighbours, Israel agrees to the termination, on a reciprocal basis, of all claims or states of belligerency with each State with which peace is established. A declaration specifying each State by name would be made by Israel in each case.

The corresponding statement by any Arab State must specifically renounce belligerency "with Israel" and not "with any State in the area." Legal obligations must be specific in regard to those by whom. they are bound.

Renunciation of belligerency includes the cessation of all maritime interference, the cessation of boycott, measures involving third parties; the annulment of reservations made by Arab States on the applicability to Israel of their obligations under international conventions to which they have adhered; non-adherence to political and military alliances and pacts directed against Israel or including States unwilling to renounce claims or states of belligerency with Israel and maintain peaceful relations with it; the non-stationing of armed forces of such other States on the territory of the contracting States and the prohibition and prevention in the territory of Arab States of all preparations, actions or expeditions by irregular or para-military groups or by individuals directed against the lives, security or property of Israel in any part of the world.

The last stipulation is without prejudice to the fact that the responsibility of Arab Governments for preventing such activities is legally binding under the cease-fire established by the parties in June 1967.

Answer to Question Three:

Israel agrees to respect and acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of neighbouring Arab States; this principle would be embodied in peace treaties establishing agreed boundaries.

Answer to Question Four:

Israel accepts the right of Jordan, Lebanon, the United Arab Republic and other neighbouring States to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force. Explicit and unequivocal reciprocity is Israel's only condition for this acceptance. "Acts of force" include all preparations, actions or expeditions by irregular or para-military groups or by individuals directed against the life, security or property of Israel in any part of the world.

Answer to Question Five:

Secure and recognized boundaries have never yet existed between Israel and the Arab States; accordingly, they should now be established as part of the peace-making process. The cease-fire should be replaced by peace treaties establishing permanent, secure and recognized boundaries as agreed upon through negotiation between the Governments concerned.

Answer to Question Six:

When permanent, secure and recognized boundaries are agreed upon and established between Israel and each of the neighbouring Arab States, the disposition of forces will be carried out in full accordance with the boundaries determined in the peace treaties.

Answer to Question Seven: [general question eight]

The refugee problem was caused by the wars launched against Israel by Arab States, and has been perpetuated through the refusal of Arab States to establish peaceful relations with Israel. In view of the human problems involved in this issue, Israel has expressed its willingness to give priority to the attainment of an agreement for the solution of this problem through regional and international cooperation. We believe that agreement could be sought even in advance of peace negotiations. We suggest that a conference of Middle Eastern States should be convened, together with the Governments contributing to refugee relief and the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, in order to chart a five-year plan for the solution of the refugee problem in the framework of a lasting peace and the integration of refugees into productive life. This conference can be called in advance of peace negotiations.

Joint refugee integration and rehabilitation commissions should be established by the Governments concerned in order to work out agreed projects for refugee integration on a regional basis with international assistance.

In view of the special humanitarian nature of this issue we do not make agreement on plans for a solution of the refugee problem contingent on agreement on any other aspect of the Middle Eastern problem. For the same reason, it should not be invoked by Arab States to obstruct agreement on other problems.

Answer to Question Eight: [General question 9]

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.

Answer to Questions Nine and Ten: [general questions 10 and 13]

Without prejudice to what is stated in answer to Question Eight, it is pointed out that experience has shown that the measures mentioned in Questions Nine and Ten have not prevented the preparation and carrying out of aggression against Israel.

Answer to Question Eleven: [general question 14]

Peace must be juridically expressed, contractually defined and reciprocally binding in accordance with established norms of international law and practice. Accordingly, Israel's position is that the peace should be embodied in bilateral peace treaties between Israel and each Arab State incorporating all the agreed conditions for a just and lasting peace. The treaties, once signed and ratified, should be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter.

C. Reply of the Government of Jordan (Received by Ambassador Jarring in Nicosia.)

23 March 1969

Your Excellency,

Following are the answers of my Government to the questions which you presented to us in Amman, on Saturday, 8 March 1969. The answers as numbered, hereunder, correspond to your questions.

These answers explain my Government's position, which position has repeatedly been stated to Your Excellency throughout our past meetings.

May I take this opportunity to express to you my continued sincere wishes for your success in the important mission with which you are entrusted.

Yours sincerely, (signed) Abdul Monem Rifa'i Minister of Foreign Affairs

Answer (1)

Jordan, as it has declared before, accepts the Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and is ready to implement it in order to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles contained in the resolution.

Answer (2)

Jordan agrees to pledge termination of all claims or states of belligerency. Such a pledge becomes effective upon withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories which Israel occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June 1967.

A pledge by Israel to terminate the state of belligerency would be meaningful only when Israel withdraws its forces from all Arab territories it occupied since 5 June 1967.

Answer (3)

On 5 June 1967, Israel launched its agression against three Arab States, violating their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Agreement to pledge respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area requires the termination by Israel of its occupation and the withdrawal of its forces from all the Arab territories it occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June.

Answer (4)

Jordan accepts the right of every State in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force, provided that Israel withdraws its forces from all Arab territories it occupied since 5 June 1967, and implements the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967.

Answer (5)

When the question of Palestine was brought before the United Nations in 1947, the General Assembly adopted its resolution 181 (11) of 29 November 1947 for the partition of Palestine and defined Israel's boundaries.

Answer (6) [General question 8]

It has always been our position that the just settlement of the refugee problem is embodied in paragraph I I of the General Assembly resolution 194 of December 1948, which has been repeatedly reaffirmed by each and every General Assembly session ever since its adoption.

If a plan on the basis of that paragraph is presented for consideration 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 justify the implementation of the other provisions of the resolution.

Answers (7) (8) [General questions 9 and 11]

We do not believe that the establishment of demilitarized zones is a necessity. However, Jordan shall not oppose the establishment of such zones if they are astride the boundaries.

Answer (9) [General question 13]

In case demilitarized zones are established, Jordan accepts that such zones be supervised and maintained by the United Nations.

Answer (10) [General question 14]

In view of our past experience with Israel and its denunciation of four agreements signed by it with Arab States, we consider that the instrument to be signed by Jordan engaging it to carry out its obligations would be addressed to the Security Council. Israel would likewise sign and address to the Security Council an instrument engaging it to carry out its obligations emanating from the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967. The endorsement by the Security Council of these documents would constitute the final multilateral act of agreement.

D. Reply of the Government of Lebanon (Received by Ambassador Jarring in Moscow on 21 April 1969.) (Translated from French.)

In reply to the questionnaire which Your Excellency addressed to me on 14 March 1969, I have the honour, on behalf of the Lebanese Government, to inform you of the following:

Lebanon is essentially involved in the general context of the Israeli-Arab conflict and, therefore, in the consequences of the war launched by Israel on 5 June 1967 because of its brotherly solidarity with the Arab States and of the threats which are constantly directed at it by Israel.

Lebanon is justified in considering, however, that the armistice agreement which it concluded with Israel on 23 March 1949 remains valid, as indicated in its message of 10 June 1967 to the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission and as confirmed by U Thant, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his report to the General Assembly of 19 September 1967. In that report, Mr. Thant, referring to the actual text of the agreement, said that it could be revised or suspended only by mutual consent. In view of Lebanon's circumstances, now and in the past, the armistice lines have, of course, never been changed. These lines, it should be noted, correspond to the frontiers of Lebanon which have always been internationally recognized in bilateral and multilateral diplomatic instruments as well as by the League of Nations and the United Nations. Lebanon participated actively in the drafting of the United Nations Charter and was admitted in its present form and structure to membership in the Organization. Its frontiers have not undergone any de facto or de jure alteration as a result of the cease-fire decisions taken by the Security Council after 5 June 1967.

It may be appropriate to state the above-mentioned facts, more particularly with a view to explaining the nature and character of the only reply which we are in a position to give to the questionnaire sent to us by Your Excellency on 14 March 1969.

In this reply, which reflects the position taken by Lebanon at inter-Arab conferences, we proclaim Lebanon's support of the position of the Arab States whose territory has been occupied by Israel and which have accepted the Security Council's decison of 22 November 1967.

The present note is consistent with the spirit of the talks which you have already held with various Lebanese officials.

Accept, sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed) Youssef Salem Minister for Foreign Affairs

E. Reply of the Government of the United Arab Republic (Handed to Ambassador Jarring in Cairo by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic on 27 March 1969.)

The memorandum handed to you on 5 March 1969, during your recent visit to Cairo, clearly expresses the realities of the present situation. In its items 1-7 the memorandum gives a clear restatement of the position of the United Arab Republic which is based on the acceptance of Security Council resolution 242 of 22 November 1967, and its readiness to carry out the obligations emanating therefrom.

The memorandum also clearly expounds Israel's persistence in rejecting the Security Council resolution and its refusal to carry out its obligations emanating from it as well as Israel's plans for annexation of Arab lands through war; a policy not only prohibited by the Charter of the United Nations but also violates the Security Council resolution which specifically emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. It has become obvious that Israel, in its endeavour to realize its expansionist aims, is no longer satisfied with the actual rejection of the Security Council resolution but actively works against it.

The same memorandum also states Israel's expansion plan as revealed by the quoted statements of Israeli leaders. This plan aims at:

1. Annexation of Jerusalem;

2. Keeping the Syrian Heights under its occupation;

3. Occupation of the West Bank in Jordan and its complete domination, practically terminating Jordan's sovereignty in that part;

4. Economic and administrative integration of the Gaza Strip into Israel and the systematic eviction of its inhabitants;

5. Occupation of Sharm el-Sheikh and the Gulf of Aqaba area as well as the continued military presence in the eastern part of Sinai;

6. The establishment of Israeli settlements in occupied territories.

The Israeli position constitutes a flagrant violation and clear rejection of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967 and of the peaceful settlement for which it provides.

In the light of these undeniable facts, I find it incumbent upon me to state categorically, at the outset of the replies to the specific questions you addressed to the United Arab Republic on 5 March 1969, that all the answers of the United Arab Republic, which reaffirm its acceptance of the Security Council resolution and its readiness to carry out the obligations emanating from it require, likewise, that Israel accept the resolution and carry out all its obligations emanating from it and in particular withdrawal from all Arab territories it occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June 1967.

Question (1)

The United Arab Republic, as it has declared before, accepts the Security council resolution 242 (1967) and is ready to implement it in order to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles contained therein.

Question (2)

The United Arab Republic agrees to pledge termination of all claims or state of belligerency. Such a pledge becomes effective upon withdrawal of Israel's forces from all Arab territories occupied as a result of Israel's aggression of 5 June 1967.

A declaration by Israel terminating the state of belligerency would be meaningful only when Israel withdraws its forces from all Arab territories it occupied since 5 June 1967.

Question (3)

On 5 June 1967, Israel launched its aggression against three Arab States violating their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Acceptance by the United Arab Republic to pledge respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area requires the termination by Israel of its occupation and the withdrawal of its forces from all the Arab territories it occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June, and the full implementation of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967.

Question (4)

The United Arab Republic accepts the right of every State in the area to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force, provided that Israel withdraws its forces from all Arab territories occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June 1967, and implements the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967.

Question (5)

When the question of Palestine was brought before the United Nations in 1947, the

General Assembly adopted its resolution 181 of 29 November 1947 for the partition of Palestine and defined Israel's boundaries.

Question (6) [General question 7]

We have declared our readiness to implement all the provisions of the Security Council resolution covering inter alia, the freedom of navigation in international waterways in the area; provided that Israel, likewise, implements all provisions of the Security Council resolution.

Question (7) [General question 8]

It has always been our position that the just settlement of the refugee problem is embodied in paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution 194 of December 1948, which has been unfailingly reaffirmed by each and every General Assembly session ever since its adoption.

If a plan on the basis of that paragraph is presented for consideration to the parties good faith, with adequate guarantees for its full implementation, would justify the implementation good faith, with adequate guarantees for its full implementation would justify the implementation of the other provisions of the Security Council resolution.

Questions (8), (9) [General questions 9 and 12]

We do not believe that the establishment of demilitarized zones is a necessity. However, the United Arab Republic will not oppose the establishment of such zones if they are astride the boundaries.

Question (10)

In case demilitarized zones are established the United Arab Republic accepts that such zones be supervised and maintained by the United Nations.

Question (11) [General question 14]

In view of our past experience with Israel and its denunciation of four agreements signed by it with Arab States, we consider that the instrument to be signed by the United Arab Republic engaging it to carry out its obligations should be addressed to the Security Council. Israel should, likewise, sign and address to the Security Council an instrument engaging it to carry out its obligations emanating from the Security Council Resolution of 22 November 1967. The endorsement by the Security Council of these documents would constitute the final multilateral document.

Cairo, 27 March 1969

Annex II Correspondence relating to the resumption of the discussions

A. Letter dated 18 November 1970 addressed to the Nfinister for Foreign Affairs of Israel:

I have the honour to refer to my letter of 7 August 1970, addressed to the Secretary General, referred to in document S/9902 in which I informed him of the agreement of your Government and of the Governments of Jordan and the United Arab Republic to the holding of discussions under my auspices for the purpose of reaching agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace between the parties.

As you will recall, I issued on 21 August 1970 an invitation to the parties to take part in discussions opening at New York on 25 August 1970. Ambassador Tekoah, who was Israeli representative for the initial stage of the discussions, met with me twice on the opening date, but was recalled to Israel for consultations. On his return on 8 September he communicated to me the decision of your Government, for reasons which were explained to me and have been publicly announced by your Government, to suspend its participation in the talks.

I am definitely of the view that the time has come for me once again to invite your Government to participate in discussions for the purpose of reaching agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace in accordance with Security Council resolution 242 (1967).

When I met you last on 5 November 1970, to consider the question of Israel's return to the discussions, I noted your concern about the influence of the debate of the General Assembly on the Middle East question and of its resolution 2628 (XXV). I wish to assure you in this connection that I am proceeding on the basis that there is no change in my mandate, which I continue to regard as having been defined in Security Council resolution 242 (1967).

You will understand, I know, my desire to make a positive report to the SecretaryGeneral about the progress of our discussions. I am accordingly inviting your Government to reconsider its position on the question and to resume its participation in the discussions. In this connection I wish to state that I have already been informed by the Governments of Jordan and the United Arab Republic of their continued willingness to participate.

I take this opportunity to inform you that, pending a reply from your Government to this appeal, I am returning to my post in Moscow. I hope that your Government will find it possible in the near future to respond favourably to this invitation, in which case I shall be available to return to New York at twenty-four hours' notice.

(Signed) Gunnar Jarring

B. Letter dated 18 November 1970 addressed to the Permanent Representative of Jordan*


 * An identical letter mutatis mutandis was sent to the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Republic.

I have the honour to inform you that I have today addressed a letter to the Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs in which I once again appealed to his Government to resume participation in discussions for the purpose of reaching agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace in accordance with Security Council resolution 242 (1967).

In that connection, I keep in mind the willingness of the Governments of Jordan and the United Arab Republic, as expressed to me by yourself and your colleague from the United Arab Republic to continue to participate in such discussions.

I take this opportunity to inform you that, pending the receipt of a reply from Israel, it is my intention to return to my post in Moscow. I wish to emphasize, however, that I am ready to return here at twenty-four hours' notice on receipt of the Israeli reply.

(Signed) Gunnar Jarring

C. Letter dated 18 November 1970 from the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Republic

With reference to your letter of today in which you inform me of your imminent return to your post in Moscow, I note with appreciation your reference to the readiness of the United Arab Republic to co-operate fully with you.

I wish to emphasize that, conscious of its obligations under the Charter and in abiding by the Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the United Arab Republic has for the last three years consistently co-operated with you, in the sincere hope that you will successfully achieve the targets entrusted, by the Secretary-General, to you in accordance with the aforementioned resolution.

Since my Government designated me last August to enter into discussions with you, I have during several meetings restated my Government's belief in a lasting peace based on the faithful implementation of the aforementioned Security Council resolution in all its parts and consequently the restoration of all Arab lands occupied by Israel since 5 June 1967, as well as ending the injustices inflicted so far on the Arab people of Palestine.

I am sure that Your Excellency's report to the Secretary-General on your mission which will be transmitted by him of the Security Council before 5 January 1971 will be of great benefit to the members of the Security Council and will assist them in taking whatever steps they may deem necessary in carrying out the responsibility entrusted to them by the Charter.

(Signed) Mohamed H. El-Zayyat

D. Letter dated 1 December 1970 from the Mnister for Foreign Affairs of Israel.

I have received your letter of 18 November 1970, in which you invite the Government of Israel to participate in discussions under your auspices for the purpose of reaching agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace in accordance with Security Council resolution 242 (1967). I note your assurance in reply to my comments on General Assembly resolution 2628 (XXV) that you are proceeding on the basis that there is no change in your mandate, which you continue to regard as having been defined in Security Council resolution 242.

On 6 August 1970, Ambassador Tekoah conveyed to you Israel's position on the United States peace initiative. This communication remains valid as the expression of Israel's policy. Concerning the discussions which we have agreed to hold under your auspices, I also draw attention to the Israel Government's decision of 6 September 1970, which was conveyed to you by Ambassador Tekoah.

On 22 November 1970, the Government of Israel adopted and published the following decision:

"The Government will act in accordance with the policy expressed in the Prime Minister's statement to the Knesset on 16 November 1970, for the creation of conditions which will justify implementation of the Government's resolution of 4 August 1970, which was approved by the Knesset - concerning the holding of talks under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring, including consolidation and extension of the cease-fire agreement with the aim of progressing from a cease-fire to a complete end to the war and to lasting peace."

We are now holding discussions on the creation of conditions which would justify a decision by the Government of Israel to hold talks with the United Arab Republic under your auspices, in accordance with our decision of 4 August 1970, conveyed to you by Ambassador Tekoah on 6 August. I shall keep you in touch with developments on this matter as they arise.

We have publicly announced that we are ready for discussions with Jordan whose Government has informed you on its continued willingness to participate in such talks.

We are also willing to hold discussions on the establishment of permanent peace with Lebanon, which has announced its adherence to Security Council Resolution 242.

(Signed) Abba Eban

E. Message from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel

Further to my letter of 1 December 1970, I have the honour to inform you that the Government of Israel decided on 28 December 1970 as follows:

The present political and military conditions enable and justify the termination of the suspension of Israel participation in the talks under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring. The Government decided to authorize the Minister for Foreign Affairs to inform those concerned of the readiness of the Government of Israel to resume its participation in the Jarring talks in accordance with the basic principles of the Government policy and on the basis of its decisions of 31 July and 4 August 1970, as approved by the Knesset, concerning Israel's affirmative reply to the peace initiative.

In view of this decision I would like to meet you in Jerusalem at your earliest convenience and my intention is to survey the situation, to acquaint you with the basic views of my Goverrunnet and to discuss steps necessary to ensure the fulfilment of your mission for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of peace.

(Signed) Abba Eban

Aide-memoire from Egypt of 15 February 1971

On 15 February, Ambassador Jarring received from the representative of the United Arab Republic an aide-memoire in which it was indicated that the United Arab Republic would accept the specific commitments requested of it, as well as other commitments arising directly or indirectly from Security Council Resolution 242 (1967). If Israel would give, likewise, commitments covering its own obligations under the Security Council resolution, including commitments for the withdrawal of its armed forces from Sinai and the Gaza Strip and for the achievement of a just settlement for the refugee problem in accordance with United Nations resolutions, the United Arab Republic would be ready to enter into a peace agreement with Israel.

Finally, the United Arab Republic expressed the view that a just and lasting peace could not be realized without the full and scrupulous implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) and the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from all the territories occupied since 5 June 1967.