outside observers, including hundreds of thousands of citizens of Arab States who visit them annually. There can be no constructive purpose in charges which on the one hand try to paint a picture of total darkness and, on the other, allege at the same time that the high standard of life, the impressive economic development, the freedom of movement and expression either are meaningless or have been ensured by Israel for ulterior motives. 84. This is equally true of misrepresentation of the peace-making efforts since 1967. What, in fact, have been the salient developments during this period in the search for peace? 85. First, to the world-wide call to peace in the Middle East, Egypt and other Arab States reacted with the notorious Khartoum resolution of 1 September 1967: “No recognition, no negotiation, no peace with Israel”. 86. Second, when the Secretary-General’s Special Repre- sentative commenced his mission at the end of 1967, Israel presented to him a detailed agenda for direct peace talks. Egypt rejected both the agenda and the idea of such negotiations. 87. Third, Ambassador Jarring proposed then a different method. In March 1968 he invited the parties to send delegations to Cyprus for conferences under his auspices. Israel accepted. Egypt refused. This was a crucial test of the parties’ attitude. The Secretary-General’s Special Repre- sentative tried to bring about meetings between the parties, for this was the normal, logical and constructive manner of conducting his mission under resolution 242 (1967). The Arab refusal was a decisive turning point. Thereafter the mission found itself in ever-growing difficulties. 88. Fourth, Egypt intensified its violations of the cease- fire along the Suez Canal until by early 1969 it declared the so-called war of attrition against Israel. A solution was to be achieved not through negotiation and agreement with Israel 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing the political and diplomatic efforts towards peace in the Middle East, specifically between Israel and Arab States, and the challenges and obstacles that have hindered progress. The text mentions economic development, freedom of movement and expression, but these are not the primary focus. The language and tone suggest a diplomatic or political document, rather than a text focused on economic or social issues.

**Category**
International relations, Politics