A resolution which in the view of some observers here makes the strongest Security Council bid for permanent Israel-Arab peace since 1949 was presented to members of the Council here today by the British delegation.
The resolution, which will come before the Council in a meeting tomorrow to follow through on Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold’s recent peace mission to the Middle East is virtually assured of unanimous support by the Council. Sir Pierson Dixon, head of the British delegation, who introduced the measure, consulted twice last week with Arkady A. Sobolev, head of the Soviet delegation. Mr. Sobolev is understood to have said that he would support the British draft with “minor changes.”
The British resolution uses language identical with phrasing employed in a joint statement issued last month in London by Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin and Britain’s Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden, which spoke of the “need to create conditions” for a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel issue “on a mutually acceptable basis.” Throughout the resolution, both in its preamble and in its substantive clauses, reference is made to a Council resolution of August 11, 1949. That resolution declared “that the armistice agreements constitute an important step toward the establishment of permanent peace in Palestine.”
Britain’s resolution refers to the fact that Mr. Hammarskjold obtained cease-fire agreements between Israel and its neighboring governments during his peace mission. It notes, however, that “full compliance with the general armistice agreements is not yet effected.” It also points out that three specific measures called for by the Council when it sent Mr. Hammarskjold on his mission “have been neither completely agreed upon nor put fully into effect.”
The three points which the Security Council wants put into effect are agreements by Israel and the Arab states to: 1. Withdraw their military forces from the demarcation lines; 2. Give full freedom of movement to UN observers, and 3. Establish local arrangements “for the prevention of incidents and the prompt detection of any violations of the armistice agreements.”
URGES FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ARAB-ISRAEL ARMISTICE FACTS
After pointing out that “full implementation by the parties of the armistice agreements” is needed, the Security Council: 1. “Commends that Secretary General and the parties on the progress already achieved;” 2. Declares that Israel and the Arab states should speedily carry out the measures already agreed upon with Mr. Hammarskjold; 3. Declares that the full freedom of movement of UN observers must be respected, and 4. Indorses Mr. Hammarskjolds view “that the re-establishment of full compliance with the armistice agreements represents a stage which has to be passed in order to make progress possible on the main issues between the parties.”
The resolution also requests Maj. Gen. E.L.M. Burns, chief of staff of the UN Truce supervision Organization to observe how Israel and the Arab states implement their cease-fire agreements and to report to the Council whenever any action by any of the parties constitutes a serious violation which in his opinion requires immediate consideration by the Security Council.
The resolution calls upon Mr. Hammarskjold “to continue his good offices with the parties and to report to the Security Council as appropriate.” The use of the term “good offices” is considered here as extremely significant since that term has been used in the past with other important aggressive actions like those in Indonesia and Korea.
As the Security Council prepared to meet tomorrow afternoon with this resolution before it, Gen. Burns arrived from his Jerusalem headquarters and issued a statement which was considered quite optimistic for the usually taciturn truce chief. General Burns said:
“Since I was last in New York in November Mr. Hammarskjold’s mission has taken place and, as you know, the parties concerned have all agreed to honor their obligations under the Armistice Agreement, and particularly the cease-fire. Since Mr. Hammarskjold’s departure, the parties have been living up to their obligations, apart from some minor incidents, and I think that there has been a relaxation of tension–so that things may take a better turn in the future. I am here to attend the meeting of the Security Council tomorrow which will discuss the Secretary-General’s report and to provide any additional information that will be required.”
The UN truce chief, however, saw no possibility of early peace talks between Israel and Egypt. Asked whether there was a chance that the two governments might sit around a conference table at an early date, he replied: “I see no chance of that in the near future.”
Neither members of the Arab delegations nor the representatives of Israel would comment today on the British draft resolution, reserving their observations for official speeches at the Council. However, it was indicated here that neither the Arabs nor the Israelis are completely happy with the resolution. The Arabs are believed cool to the measure because of its constant allusions to the goal of permanent peace.
(In Washington the State Department today reserved comment on the British resolution introduced at the UN Security Council. State Department spokesman Lincoln White said U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., would make the U.S. position clear when the mater comes up before the Security Council.)
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
