The Gulf Crisis and New World Order — Page 222
1\vel. fth Friday Sennon Feb 08, 1991 mischievous lacuna was left in the resolution (as is normal with the British and Western diplomacies) so that when the time for the implementation of this resolution arrives, new debates can be started on the supplementary issues to confuse the matter. So this provision in the resolution mentioned that it would be the right of all states in this region that their security is safeguarded so that their geographical boundaries are not threatened or endangered. The motive behind this provision was that when the time of vacating the occupied area approaches for the implementation of this resolution, then this provision could be stretched to make the resolution ineffective, in the interest of the Jews, by saying that the security of Israel demands that such and such territorial changes and adjustments be made prior to its implementation. Consequently none of the provisions of the resolution have so far been complied and the matter remains suspended since the end of the 1967 war. Now the question arises that if for the implementation of a U. N. resolution, U. S. and its allies have the right to attack Iraq, using Kuwait as a pretext which is not even their territory, then why cannot the same principle be applied for the restoration of the rights of those countries who have lost their territory to Israel and have been waiting for years for the implementation of the U. N. Resolution No. 242. Why should they not have the equal right to undertake the military action to regain their territories from Israel. The hostilities of 1973 took place because the Arabs had, eventually, decided to try to recover their own land. To call this action an aggression is quite unjust. This was the effort of a weak and oppressed nation. As the great powers were not helpful to have the U. N. resolution implemented, they thought of making an attempt of their own. This is, briefly, the history of the wars in this region and the conduct and attitude of all these nations in this context which I placed before you. We do not have the time to consider the details of the facts which have come to light in the wake of the present war, but these must be still fresh in your memory. To summarize the case, it is quite apparent now that these powerful Western nations have given Israel the right to resort to the use of force whenever and wherever it desires. It has the right to refuse to vacate the territo1y forcibly acquired, even if the Security Council of the U. N. decides that it should withdraw from its occupied lands. On the contrary, the 222