commitment to a guaranteed peace. They made clear and positive statements in answer to Ambassador Jarring’s questions regarding the provisions of the resolution such as the definition of peace, the demilitarized zones, freedom of navigation in the international waterways, the refugee question and others. But Israel neither accepted the principle of withdrawal nor even gave the Special Repre- sentative its definition of the extent of its so-called “secure boundaries”. When four permanent members met in con- sultation to render some necessary support and assistance to the Special Representative, Israel raised sharp protesting noises and exerted every effort to frustrate this Security Council initiative. When in June 1970 the United States of America undertook a unilateral initiative to reactivate tire Jarring mission in the context of a general cease-fire, Israel expressed bitterness and anger and chose the earliest moment to sabotage the renewed peace efforts and suspend its co-operation with Ambassador Jarring. When the Special Representative, in the course of his normal efforts, made ordinary and logical suggestions in February 1971 involving the principle of withdrawal, Israel virtually boycotted the Special Representative’s mission until this moment. 134. Whenever Governments friendly to Israel suggested that the provision for withdrawal in resolution 242 (1967) meant real withdrawal, Israel depicted this normal suggestion from a friendly source as a cardinal sin and heaped abuse on the leaders of those countries. How can the mission of the Special Representative achieve any measure of success with one party so totally opposed to its fair and objective operation? 135. We have heard the Israeli spokesmen speak of “negotiation”. We have heard them pose as the advocate of dialogue in this question. But any deeper look beyond the slogan reveals its deliberate misapplication in the present situation. Negotiation is a method to achieve a concrete goal. Israel’s verbal utilization of the slogan does not 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing a conflict or dispute between Israel and other parties, specifically regarding the implementation of a United Nations resolution. The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting that the text may be related to international relations, peacekeeping, or conflict resolution. The mention of a Special Representative and the United Nations Security Council also suggests that the text is related to international diplomacy.

**Category**
International relations, Humanitarian aid and relief