The emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly concluded general debate Friday on the Middle East situation after hearing representatives of 69 countries and prepared to begin voting tomorrow on resolutions aimed at resolving the conflict and establishing peace in the area.
The Assembly was expected to decide between two of the five resolutions submitted — the first, introduced by Yugoslavia and backed by 15 African and Asian “non-aligned” states, demanding the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces to the positions they held prior to June 5; the second, introduced by Trinidad and Tobago with the backing of 18 Latin American states, calling on Israel to withdraw and on all parties to the conflict to put an end to the state of belligerency.
The Yugoslav resolution was condemned by Foreign Minister Abba S. Eban as “a prescription for renewed hostilities” and he told the Assembly that “we reject it totally.” American quarters warned that the Yugoslav resolution, as amended, could open the way for direct, unilateral intervention by the Soviet Union. They said the operative clause was one which calls on member states “to render every assistance to the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution.” The other amendments, designed to make the draft more palatable, provided that “immediately after the withdrawal of Israel forces has been completed,” the Security Council would “consider urgently all aspects of the situation in the Middle East” and would “seek peaceful ways and means” for solution of all the pending problems. The draft also provided for the presence in the Middle East of a personal representative of the Secretary-General and for an enforcement role for the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization.
NEW RESOLUTION LINKS PULLBACK TO TERMINATION OF BELLIGERENCY
The Latin American resolution, which the United States indicated it might support, tied termination of the state of belligerency to the Israeli withdrawal. It called for urgent Security Council consideration of the situation “cooperating directly with the parties and relying on the presence of the United Nations” to achieve the Israeli withdrawal and the termination of belligerency, to guarantee the freedom of international waterways of the region, to obtain an adequate and complete solution of the problem of the refugees and “to guarantee the inviolability and political independence of the states in the region, including to this effect the establishment of demilitarized zones.” The resolution also reiterated the desirability of establishing an international regime for the city of Jerusalem and proposed that this should be considered by the next General Assembly.
An Israel delegation source explained that Foreign Minister Eban’s insistence on using the word “union” rather than the word “annexation” to describe developments in Jerusalem arose from historic and legal considerations. The word “annexation,” he noted, would have implied that Old Jerusalem was previously “foreign territory,” a concept alien to Jewish sentiment and history. On legal grounds, Mr. Eban insisted on using only those terms employed by the Justice Ministry in introducing the legislation on Jerusalem in the Knesset. In statements in the General Assembly and to the press, Mr. Eban said that the only matter with regard to Jerusalem still outstanding for international concern was the system of arrangements to be devised for the holy places.
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.
