UNITED NATIONS, N.Y (Jul. 17)
The same kind of complaints so often voiced against Egypt and the other Arab states here by Israel and so frequently discounted by the Security Council were expressed here today by Jordan.
Responding quickly to Jordan’s demand for urgent consideration of its complaint about interference in its domestic affairs by the United Arab Republic, the Security Council listened to Jordan’s grievance first of all when it opened its session this afternoon.
In presenting his government’s complaint, Bahar Ud-Din Toukan, permanent representative of Jordan, sounded like Abba Eban has on many occasions here, when he accused the UAR of smuggling saboteurs, agents and ammunition into Jordan for purposes of overthrowing his government and when he accused Egyptian radio and press in conducting an anti-Jordanian campaign.
Israel continued to play here today the role of the off-stage but omnipresent member of the large and grave cast assembled here for the tense Middle East drama. Without an open word from the Israeli delegation, and with only fragmentary, often contradictory, reports and rumors reaching here allegedly from Jerusalem sources, Israel’s stake in the crisis and in the events ahead was one of the paramount issues being discussed on all levels at United Nations headquarters.
Jordan’s complaint against the United Arab Republic today stimulated further speculation as to the meaning of the current crisis to Israel. There were some guesses that within the next few days Israel may be more directly involved in the crisis.
Some of that speculation was tied in with the nose counting in regard to the possibility that a special emergency session of the General Assembly might be summoned. If the Assembly should be convened, Israel will of course have an opportunity to participate in open debate. In the Council, Israel cannot possibly intervene because it is neither a member of the body nor a party to the disputes which formally involve Lebanon and Jordan on the one hand and the United Arab Republic on the other.
Both the British and the American delegations were openly relying heavily on their Middle East experts who are thoroughly familiar with Israel. Sir Pierson Dixon seemed to be conferring at every step with Harold Beeley, one of the top Middle East “hands” of the Foreign Office. Evidently playing a very important part as an adviser to Henry Cabot Lodge, chairman of the American delegation, is Richard F. Pedersen, a Middle East expert assigned to the delegation by the State Department.