UNITED NATIONS, N. Y (Dec. 18)
The United Nations General Assembly was thrown today into a new full-dress debate on the eight-power resolution calling for direct Arab-Israel peace talks when the Philippine delegation introduced an amendment to the resolution this morning.
The Philippine amendment would change the text of the resolution adopted several days ago by the U.N. Special Political Committee over the opposition of the Arab delegations. The amendment is suited to the Arab viewpoint and provides that Arab-Israel peace negotiations should be held on the basis of the “principle of the internationalization of Jerusalem,” as well as other previous U. N. resolutions concerning the Palestine issue.
Introduction of this last-minute amendment led to a long discussion during the morning and afternoon sessions in which United States, France, Panama, and other cosponsors of the eight-power resolution spoke out sharply against the Philippine proposal pointing out that it would serve no useful purpose since it does not aim at harmonizing the views of Israel and the Arab countries.
PHILIPPINES INSISTS ON INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JERUSALEM
The Philippines delegate, Salvador Lopez, argued that his amendment aims only “to maintain the integrity” of former United Nations resolutions on the Palestine question. He stressed the government’s concern with keeping the question of the internationalization of Jerusalem “constantly in the forefront” and that it is particularly keen on safeguarding “the religious interests of third parties” in Jerusalem. He resented a statement by the delegate of Panama that his amendment would “bring dynamite” to the Arab-Israel negotiations.
French delegate Plerre Ordonneau told the General Assembly that his delegation is against the Philippine amendment and will support the resolution for direct Arab-Israel talks as adopted by the Special Political Committee. This resolution, he said, cannot be accused of partiality or injustice. He expressed the hope that Israel and the Arab countries would accept its appeal for direct talks.
The delegate of The Netherlands pointed out that Israel — which accepted the resolution passed by the Special Political Committee — does not accept the Philippine amendment. “We have strong reason to suspect that Jordan” would not accept part of the amendment, he added. In other words, both parties to the internationalization of Jerusalem would oppose the implmentation of that amendment. His government could not, therefore, support that amendment, he added.
The amendment regarding the internationalization of Jerusalem would set the block back to 1948,” the Netherlands representative continued. If the General Assembly wished to impose its will on the two parties directly concerned, it would have to send an army. He took the view that the reference in the Political Committee’s resolution to the “religious interests of third parties” implied protection of the Holy Places in Jerusalem.
The Arab delegates, addressing the General Assembly, continued to express their opposition to the resolution for direct Arab-Israel peace talks and referred to a statement allegedly made in Israel by Premier David Ben Gurion to a representative of the New York Times indicating that the Israel Government intends to make no change in its policy on the Arab refugees and on the status of Jerusalem.
EBAN EXPLAINS ISRAEL’S STAND ON HOLY PLACES
Israeli delegate Abba Eban, in reply, said that Premier Ben Gurion had made no statement of any kind to members of the press recently, that he had only given a lunch party among whose guests were correspondents. Mr. Eban criticized the Arabs for quoting the Premier in the context of newspaper clippings. He declared that “only official views can have the status of discussion.”
The Israeli delegate said that his Premier had issued an official formulation on the question of Jerusalem and the Holy Places. He quoted this as saying that Israel was willing to show a cooperative attitude at all time in the protection and accessibility of the Holy Places. “We are resolved to hold these sacred interests inviolate, “Mr. Eban said.
The Iraqi delegate, Dr. Fadil el Jamali, said that unless the “Zionists” change their principles and give up their “expansive attitude” there can be no negotiations and no peace settlement, He declared the eight power resolution was a “further blow” to Arab rights and the United Nations Charter.
American delegate Philip C, Jessup told the Assembly late in the afternoon that his delegation would vote for the eight power resolution and against the Philippine amendment.