332
March 1979 denied self-determination to Palestinians by legitimizing Israeli occupation of
territories it had seized in 1967.
In Israel’s opinion, the sole purpose of the
joint communique issued by PLO and its Lebanese allies was to serve as a smoke-screen for continued PLO violence both within UNIFIL’s area of
operation and across the border with Israel. The
so-called P L O commitment not to attack first,
Israel charged, was carefully phrased so as not to
apply to civilians, its usual target. Israel believed
that Lebanon’s problems had begun with the
presence of PLO. Subsequently, the Syrian Arab
Republic had invaded Lebanon under the pretext of aiding its Government against PLO and restoring peace. In Israel’s view, there could be no
peace in Lebanon while a Syrian occupation
army threatened Beirut, and armed PLO terrorists
were allowed’ on Lebanese territory. Israel appealed to the Council to face the problem of
Lebanon with realism; there should be a forthright condemnation of PLO’s flagrant violation of
UNIFIL’s mandate.
Israel said it was exercising its inherent right
of self-defence. I f S t a t e s w e r e u n w i l l i n g o r
unable to prevent terrorists from operating out
of their countries, they should be prepared for
reprisals.
The 1949 Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice
Agreement had been renounced by Lebanon in
1967, the Israeli representative charged, and
Israel felt it was time to move towards a negotiated peace. It awaited Lebanon’s answer to the
peace proposal the Israeli Prime Minister had
made on 7 May. He reiterated that Israel was
prepared to co-operate with UNIFIL, and its position vis-à-vis Lebanon remained unchanged:
Israel supported the national sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries.
Lebanon observed that the Israeli Prime
Minister’s offer to Lebanon to negotiate a peace
treaty, under which Iraq, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Saudi Arabia and the Syrian Arab Republic would absorb and resettle stateless Palestinian
refugees, was unacceptable to Lebanon and
could only be viewed as a diversionary tactic.
Egypt said that the self-defence pretexts advanced by Israel to justify its attacks against
Lebanon had no validity. Egypt had condemned
such actions as undermining efforts aimed at
achieving a just peace in the Middle East, which
depended on the resolution of the Palestinian
problem. Sincere efforts in that direction were
necessary, particularly on the part of Israel.
Egypt and France held that Israel had no legitimate reason to cross an international border.
Jordan said that the occupation of parts of
Lebanese territory by the de facto forces was a

Political and security questions
cover for Israel’s presence there; one of their
aims was to control the headwaters of the Jordan
River and parts of the Litani River to ensure
that Israel had an ample water supply. Kuwait
also charged that the water supply of the
Palestinians in Lebanon was being diverted to
illegal Jewish settlements.
On 14 June, the Council voted on a draft resolution, prepared in the course of consultations
among Council members, which it adopted as
resolution 450(1979) by 12 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia a n d t h e U S S R ) .
China did not participate in the voting.
By the resolution, the Council renewed the
mandate of UNIFIL for six months, until 19
December. The Council reaffirmed in the preamble its call for the strict respect for the territorial
integrity, unity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally
recognized boundaries. Convinced that the situation had serious implications for peace in the
Middle East, it expressed anxiety about the
obstacles to the full deployment of UNIFIL and
the threats to the Force’s safety and freedom of
movement.
By the operative paragraphs, the Council:
strongly deplored acts of violence against Lebanon; called on Israel to cease forthwith its acts
against the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon, in
particular its assistance to irresponsible armed
groups; called on all parties concerned to cooperate for the fulfilment of the objectives of
UNIFIL; reaffirmed the validity of the 1949 General Armistice Agreement between Israel and
Lebanon and called on the parties to take the
necessary steps to reactivate ILMAC and ensure
full respect for the safety and freedom of action
of UNTSO; urged all Member States in a position
to do so to bring their influence to bear so that
UNIFIL could discharge its responsibilities fully
and unhampered; and reaffirmed its determination, in the event of continuing obstruction of
UNIFIL’s mandate, to examine practical ways, in
accordance with the United Nations Charter, to
secure the full implementation of resolution
425(1978).
Speaking after the vote, Israel welcomed the
renewal of the mandate but categorically rejected the political elements of the resolution. It felt
that the text ignored the loss of innocent Israeli
lives, and it rejected the implication that Israel
had endangered the territorial integrity of Lebanon, which had been undermined by P L O and
Syrian forces. It also rejected the reference to the
1949 Armistice Agreement.
The USSR said it had abstained in the voting
because of its position regarding UNIFIL, including questions concerning the direction of UNIFIL