text: 12. Actually, shortly after the beginning of hostilities on 5 June 1967, the Security Council adopted resolutions 233 (1967) and 234 (1967) which called for an immediate cease-fire. But, already in July, Israel was violating the 2 cease-fire in the sector of the Canal. On 9 and 10 July the Council repeated its appeal for respect for the cease-fire. 13. In resolutions 240 (1967) of 25 October 1967, 248 (1968) of 24 March 1968, 256 (1968) of 16 August 1968, 258 (1968) of 18 September 1968,262 (1968) of 31 December 1968 and 265 (1969) of 1 April I969 the Security Council unequivocally condemns Israel for these violations of the cease-fire, for its premediated military action against civilian targets in Upper Egypt and in Jordan. 14. As if to make a further mockery of the international community, on 28 December 1968, pursuing its expan. sionist aims, Israel extended its raids to another Arab country, Lebanon, spreading death and destruction at the international airport of Beirut, This new act of aggression, which was not the first act of terrorism committed by Israel against the Arab countries, was also condemned by the Security Council and by world public opinion. Successively in its resolutions of 270 (1969) of 26 August 1969 and ZSO(1970) of 19 May 1970 the Security Council again condemns Israel for its premediated military action, de- claring in its resolutions that these armed attacks could no longer be tolerated. It repeated its solemn warning to the effect that if Israel reverted to such actions the Security Council would take effective measures in pursuance of the relevant Articles of the Charter to give effect to its resolutions. 15. As is clear from a reading of the whole of document S/10929, for the content of which we pay a tribute to the 
analysis: The text appears to be a historical document discussing the conflict between Israel and Arab countries in the late 1960s. It mentions resolutions passed by the Security Council, ceasefires, and condemnations of Israel's actions. The focus is on the political and military aspects of the conflict, rather than any specific economic, social, or environmental issues.