NEW YORK (Sep. 3)
The U.N. Security Council’s decision ordering Egypt to and the Suez Canal blockade against the Jewish state was lauded by Israel’s Ambassador Abba S. Eban. He expressed the hope that the Council’s decision would help pave the way to the realization of peace between Arab and Jew in the Middle East and fervently declared his government’s desire for a stable peace with its neighbors. Mrs. Eban said the decision indicated the determination of the Security Council that the Arabs and the Jews should not lapse back into a state of belligerence, and emphasized that history had shown that whenever Arabs and Israelis met directly across a table, agreements could be made.
The New York Times in an editorial today warns Egypt against any attempt to defy the Security Council demand that the restrictions on shipping through the Suez Canal be ended. “If today Egypt is at the wrong end of an overwhelming vote in the Security Council, with even her hoped-for support by Russia withheld, it is not because of imperialism or because Israel is being favored; it is because Egypt is in the wrong,” the editorial says. “Egyptian officials had already informed the Arab League that they did not intend to obey the Security Council. This would be a dangerous threat to implement,” the article emphasizes.
The decision, which was adopted last Saturday, calls upon Egypt “to terminate restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping and goods through the Suez Canal wherever bound and to cease all interference with such shipping. “The vote was eight in favor, none against. India, Nationalist China and the Soviet Union abstained.
Despite all predictions to the contrary, and to the astonishment of all the delegates, the Soviet delegation, which last Wednesday had asked for a postponement of the debate, not only failed to broach any new proposal, but had no word whatsoever to say at Saturday’s meeting of the Security Council. The only post-meeting comment that Soviet delegate Tsarapkin had to make for this bewildering performance was that in the intervening days “nothing has changed.”