Condemned by Security Council, Israel Says It Will Continue to Defend Itself

The United Nations was on notice Monday that Israel would retain its right to undertake all measures it deemed necessary to preserve its sovereignty and security despite Sunday night’s action by the Security Council condemning Israel’s raid on Jordan territory last Thursday to wipe out the guerrilla bases from which terrorist attacks had been mounted against Israel territory.

In a dramatic statement to the Council Sunday night after its adoption of the resolution, Ambassador Yosef Tekoah, head of the Israel delegation told the Council that the only solution to the Middle East situation was peace but that as long as a state of war continued, Israel would abide by its obligations under the cease-fire agreement. He pointed out, however, that the cease-fire was a reciprocal agreement and required full reciprocity from the Arab states. He noted statements by Arab spokesmen to the Council that they would not seek to stem the terrorist raids and declared that if the Arabs engaged in military activity or terror, Israel had a right and duty to defend itself.

Mr. Tekoah reminded the Council that the intent of the resolution referred to both the Israel and the Jordan complaints although the original draft and statements made during the debate suggested that the Council was dealing only with the Jordanian complaint. He drew attention to statements by the Jordanian representative that Jordan would persist in warfare, terrorism and sabotage. Israel, he said, asked nothing of its neighbors but to be left in peace. Jordan’s attitude would determine whether Israel would have to fight again or whether issues would be resolved at the negotiating table.

The Israel envoy told the Security Council bluntly that Israel could not accept the condemnation contained in the resolution. The Charter of the United Nations, he reminded the Council, gave Israel the right of self-defense.

RESOLUTION CONDEMNS ISRAEL’S ‘LARGE-SCALE’ ACTION, DEPLORES OTHER VIOLATIONS OF CEASE-FIRE

The resolution adopted by the Council described the Thursday operation as of “a large-scale carefully planned nature’ and condemned it as a “flagrant violation” of the United Nations Charter and of the cease-fire resolutions. It deplored “all violent incidents on violation of the cease-fire” and warned that “such actions of military reprisal and other grave violations of the cease-fire cannot be tolerated and that the Security Council would have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to insure against repetition of such acts” — a reference to sanctions. The resolution further called on Israel “to desist from acts or activities in contravention” of the Council’s Nov. 22 resolution.

The resolution adopted by the Council was a modified form of a bitter anti-Israel draft proposed by India, Pakistan, and Senegal. It was declared acceptable by the United States and Great Britain after inclusion of a condemnation of all “violations of the cease-fire.” The resolution did not, however, rebuke Jordan by name for permitting these “violent incidents” nor did it call on the Arab state to take action to prevent them.

The original draft resolution had made no reference to the cease-fire violations which preceded the Israeli action of last Thursday and had regarded the Israeli action without the background of extenuating circumstances. Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg, the head of the American delegation, fought long and hard to secure inclusion in the draft of a reference to the other violations of the cease-fire. He stressed that while the United States opposed acts of retaliation. It also opposed acts of terrorism in violation of the cease-fire agreements. He warned that “violence breeds violence” and that was the lesson of recent days. Both kinds of violence, he said, must be ended.

The American envoy said that it was because the resolution “takes into account all types of violence in violation of the cease-fire that my delegation was able to support it.” He urged all parties to “scrupulous compliance” with the cease-fire and “fullest cooperation with the Jarring mission.” Sources at the U.N, said it was understood that President Johnson had taken a direct interest in the formation of the American position.

The debate proved the Soviet Union to be the most adamant and Intransigent party to the debate, Yakov Malik, head of the Soviet delegation, stressed time and again his belief that the Security Council should condemn Israel and impose sanctions to compel the Jewish state to return to its pre-June borders. He linked his attacks on Israel with the United States and the Arab-Israel situation with Vietnam and reiterated frequently that his delegation was ready to vote for the imposition of sanctions, He indicated that he had voted for the resolution only because it seemed to satisfy his Arab allies. The Soviet envoy said his government was determined, “along with other peace-loving states,” to work for the cessation of Israeli aggression and the liquidation of its consequences. This, he said, Included the return of the occupied Arab territories and the necessary political settlement to assure the sovereignty. territorial integrity and independence of each state in the area.