text: almost six years to the day, the occupation remains. 33. In 1967, when an emergency special session of the General Assembly was convened, some Members insisted on immediate Israeli withdrawal to the lines from which they had attacked on 5 June 1967. They thought this was an urgent first requirement, to be followed by consideration of the original Palestinian question. Other States had another approach. Their approach was that it was an opportunity to find a solution for the whole of the Middle East conflict- that is, for the problem of the Palestinians, as we11 as that of the 1967 attack. The Assembly session, as we know, ended without adoption of a resolution, although it should be remembered that all United Nations Member States agreed on one principle-namely, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all .the Arab territories occupied in 1967. A Latin American draft resolution which our colleagues here remember well stated that the Assembly: ” 1. Urgently requests: (a) Israel to withdraw all its forces from all the [Arabj territories occupied by it as a result of the recent conflict;“.2 And unless I am mistaken, in which case I hope I will be corrected, the delegations of the United States of America and Israel voted for that Latin American resolution. 34. On 7 November 1967 Egypt requested the convening of the Security Council in an urgent meeting to consider the dangerous situation caused by Israel’s refusal up to that date to withdraw its armed forces from the territories which it had occupied in June 1967. The Council, 011 22 November 1967, chose to deal again with the two problems together. It did not limit itself to considering the question of Israeli aggression against the three Arab States, as requested by Jordan, Syria and Egypt: it sought a simultaneous solution to this problem and also to the 
analysis: The text appears to be a historical account of a United Nations General Assembly session and Security Council meeting, discussing the occupation of Arab territories by Israel in 1967. The language used is formal and diplomatic, indicating a focus on international relations and politics. The text does not mention specific economic, environmental, or social issues, which suggests that it does not fit into categories related to those topics.