UNITED NATIONS, N. Y. (Dec. 21)
A mild resolution, sponsored by the United States and Britain “deploring the renewal of military action” on the Israel-Syrian border last month and recommending in effect that both Israel and Syria renew their efforts to tranquilize their frontier, was approved here today by eight members of the 11-member Security Council but failed of formal adoption due to a veto by the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia and Morocco Joined the USSR in voting against the American-British draft.
Before voting on the draft submitted by Washington and London, the Council overwhelmingly rejected three out of five amendments to the resolution submitted by Morocco. Under the rejected amendments, the Council would have deplored “the violation by an Israeli military patrol of the armistice demarcation line” and would have deplored “the subsequent unjustified resort by Israel to aerial action.”
Today’s Soviet veto was the 104th exercised here by the Kremlin which, as a permanent member of the Council, enjoys the veto power. Soviet delegate Morozov argued at the Council meeting that the two-power draft attempted to put Syria on the same footing as the “aggressor,” Israel. He said the Moroccan amendments constituted the mildest possible wording. The council should have condemned Israel, in his view. He said his delegation resolutely supported all the Moroccan amendments.
The Moroccan amendment adopted calls specifically upon Israel as well as Syria to “participate fully” in the meetings of the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission. The original draft merely mentioned “the parties” without pointing a finger specifically at either party by name.
After the balloting, Michael S. Comay, Israel’s permanent representative here, told the Council: “We, together with the eight members of the Council who voted in favor of the American-British resolution, deeply regret the loss of lives which were due to Syria’s start of firing as reported by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. One overriding lesson we might learn from this debate is the danger and recklessness of Syria’s opening of fire, a practice which has been outlawed both by the Armistice agreement and by the UNTSO.
“If there is one thing the Armistice agreement provides it is freedom from attack or threat of attack. We must emphasize that the Armistice Agreement was only the step toward peace. We hope that Syria will come to understand that fact in the interests of Syria and the Middle East as a whole,” Mr. Comay stressed.