The issue of Israel’s rights to send ships and cargo through the Suez Canal came up for debate in the House of Lords today, during which the members of the Upper House assured the House that “the view of Her Majesty’s Government has always been that the Canal should be open to the shipping of all nations. “
Speaking for the Government was Lord Landsdowne, who made his statement in reply to a request voiced by Lord Barnby for information on the Government’s position “in view of the current disregard in the case of the SS Inge Toft of the rights of free passage for all ships and cargoes through the Suez Canal. “
The Inge Toft, a Danish freighter, has been under detention at Port Said by the United Arab Republic since May 21 for carrying Israeli cargo. Its cargo was declared confiscated by the Egyptian officials as a “prize of war, “despite refusal of the ships captain to unload. Lord Barny asked “what, if any, action the Government intends to take now. “
Lord Landsdowne said that Dag Hammarskjold, United Nations Secretary General, had been personally discussing with the UAR “the whole question” of the rights of free passage of all ships through the Suez Canal. Lord Landsdowne added he felt that the UN Secretary General had been particularly concerned with the question of the passage of Israel shipping.
BRITISH INTERVENTION CONSIDERED “NOT USEFUL” AT PRESENT
Noting that the British Government had supported resolutions in the UN Security Council in September 1951 and October 1956 reaffirming Israel’s rights to peaceful Suez transit, Lord Lansdowne said at the same time that “in the opinion of Her Majesty’s Government, no useful purpose would be served by any British intervention at the present time. “
As the debate continued. Lard Barnby declared that UN “ineffectiveness” in the Inge Toft case bore “a similarity” to that in the case of the Hungarian revolt. “It would be a still further cause for concern among those who fear that the UN as an instrument for settling difficulties is diminishing steadily. “he stressed. Lord Lansdowne replied that this “supplementary question” had no bearing whatever on the original question.
Another questioner. Lord Stansgate. asked if the British Government was saying that the Suez Canal Convention of 1888 was still valid in its entirety. To this Lord Lansdowne replied that the position of the British Government was “abundantly clear. ” He said: “We subscribed to the United Nations Security Council statement of September 1951 and again in 1956 upholding the rights of passage of all nations through the Suez Canal and that is still our plan. “
While loud cheers greeted this statement. Lord Stansgate persisted on the question of whether the British Government considered the 1888 Constantinople Convention as valid. Lord Lansdowne retorted that Lord Stansgate was “well aware” that there were many complications about the convention. Reiterating that the British Government’s position was “absolutely clear” in its support of the Security Council resolutions, he said “we stand by that. “
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.
