The Security Council, which was to have heard Israel’s complaint today against Egypt for its blockade of Israel-bound shipping, spent two and a half hours in a wrangle over procedure and adjourned within five minutes of its adoption of an agenda for the day’s meeting.
The agenda, as proposed by the United States and accepted without dissent, gave first blood to the Egyptians who succeeded in having their counter-complaint against Israel, which was filed only late Wednesday night, incorporated into the agenda.
The Egyptian delegation, in a move obviously designed to snarl Security Council procedure on the Israeli complaint, filed a complaint charging Israel with violation of the armistice agreement in the demilitarized zone of El Auja. He asked that the complaint be placed on the same agenda as the Israel complaint against Egypt.
Among the “violations” claimed by Egypt were the entrance of Israeli armed forces into the demilitarized zone and establishment by Israel of settlements in the demilitarized zone.
The Israel delegation, in a letter to the president of the Council today, offered information on the Egyptian complaint “which the Egyptian delegation in its diversionary maneuver has distorted or suppressed.” This pointed out that the Israeli-Egyptian Mixed Armistice Commission had already rejected the Egyptian complaint over establishment of an Israeli village in the El Auja district.
LEBANON ASKS EGYPTIAN COMPLAINT BE DISCUSSED SIMULTANEOUSLY
When the Council met today and considered its agenda, Dr. Charles Malik of The Lebanon sought inclusion of the Egyptian item so that the two different aspects of the “Palestine Question” would be considered simultaneously.
His move was strongly opposed by Britain and France, with the former proposing that the Israeli complaint be adopted as the agenda with the Egyptian complaint as a sub-Item and the Egyptian delegation requested to submit a supporting memorandum. The Soviet Union and Nationalist China, however, strongly supported the Lebanese move.
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., said that the United States favored inclusion of the Egyptian item on the agenda, even on today’s agenda, but felt that the items should be dealt with in turn and not together, with the two Israeli items followed by a third containing the Egyptian complaint.
The United States position was supported by Brazil and Colombia. Denmark announced it would abstain on the United States proposal. France asked for guarantees the Council President could suggest to prevent simultaneous consideration of the two items if both were to appear on the agenda of each meeting. He warned that to “confuse” the two items would be contrary to the tradition of the Security Council.
The question of guarantees evoked a blast from Andrei Y. Vishinsky, the Soviet delegate, who charged that “special rules of procedure” were being sought for the Palestine question. The Council president, Leslie Knox Munro, of New Zealand, said he did not know if he had the power to give guarantees, but should the American proposal be adopted, he would keep discussion to the point of the agenda and would call any speaker to order who went beyond the “bonds of relevance.”
The American proposal was carried after the Lebanese move had been withdrawn in its favor and the Council adjourned without even having heard a statement of the Israeli complaint against Egypt.
MORE PROCEDURAL DEBATE EXPECTED BEFORE ISRAEL IS HEARD
When the Council resumes its session tomorrow afternoon, further discussion on the agenda may be expected before Israel Ambassador Abba S. Eban is permitted to present his 10,000-word indictment of Egypt. The Danish delegate noted tonight although he abstained from voting on inclusion of the Egyptian complaint, he might have something to say on it tomorrow as it was the procedure of the Council to adopt its agenda at each meeting.
The procedural wrangle had been considered a foregone conclusion ever since it became known that Egypt had called on the Security Council for “urgent consideration” of the El Auja complaint it had made last October and had been content to leave dormant. This was considered the first move in a long delaying process which is expected to protract the Council’s consideration of the Suez Canal issue far beyond the sixteen weeks consumed by the Council before a Soviet veto stalemated it in the Syrian-Israeli dispute.
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.
