“big Three” Back Israel on Suez Issue at Security Council Debate

The United States, Britain and France today backed Israel’s demand at the United Nations Security Council that Egypt must keep the Suez Canal open for ships sailing to and from Israel under the Israel flag.

The heads of the British, French and American delegations indicted Egypt for its blockade of the Suez Canal, calling such stoppage a violation of the armistice agreement between Egypt and Israel. Brazil, apparently voicing the sentiment of a number of other members of the Security Council, took the same attitude as the Big Three. The Soviet Union’s delegate, who in the past had vetoed anti-Arab actions in the Council, refrained from making any comment whatever.

The case of the seizure by Egypt of the Israel vessel “Bat Galim” was acknowledged by all to be clearly a test issue. Fundamental emphasis was placed upon the very issue that Israel has been accentuating, Israel’s right to free passage through the Suez Canal.

At the very beginning of today’s meeting of the Security Council, presided over by New Zealand’s Sir Leslie Know Munro, Ambassador Abba S. Eban, chief of Israel’s delegation, announced that he had nothing to say until members of the Council had voiced their comments. Omar Loutfi, acting chairman of the Egyptian delegation, briefly reviewed the “Bat Galim” case, pointing out that the ship’s crew has already been released, and making a new suggestion to the effect that a subcommittee of the Israel-Egyptian Mixed Armistice Commission now take charge of the ship, which is still being held by Egypt.

U.S. DELEGATE URGES EGYPT TO LET “BAT GALIM” PROCEED TO HAIFA

The heads of the three Western delegations then addressed the Council, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., United States representative, although the last of the Big Three representatives to speak, seemed to set the tone by declaring Egyptian restrictions on ships passing through the Suez Canal, whether bound to or from Israel, or whether flying the Israeli or some other flag, are inconsistent with the spirit and intent” of the Egyptian-Israel armistice agreement and the various resolutions and treaties about freedom of passage through the Suez Canal. Mr. Lodge called upon Egypt to let the Bat Galim continue its passage through the Suez Canal now:

Sir Pierson Dixon, the British delegate, told the Egyptians that after Egypt had decided that the “Bat Galim” crew was not guilty of murder charges originally filed by the Egyptian authorities, “the Egyptian Government could have seen its way to letting the ship proceed on its course through the Canal under such security restrictions as seemed appropriate.” He expressed regret that “this course was not followed.”

Henri Hoppenot, of France, took the view, just as the U.S. and Britain had, that Egyptian insistence upon blockading the Canal to shipping flying the Israel flag violates the original Constantinople Treaty of 1888, as well as the UN resolution of 1951. Brazil supported the Big Three and insisted that the Israel ship, crew and cargo should have been allowed to proceed through the Canal. In the viewpoint of Brazil, Egypt should also pay compensation to the crew and ship for having been held “in durance vile.”

Sir Leslie then adjourned the Council meeting “until next week,” without setting a specific date. It was the general concensus among delegates that it is up to Egypt now to alter its course or face a resolution ordering it to do so.

After the meeting, Israel circles expressed deep gratification over the re-affirmation by the three Western Powers and Brazil of the principle of free passage to and from Israel through the Canal. Israelis here attached special importance to the clear formulation of the case voiced by Ambassador Lodge.