In the face of very sharp disagreements voiced by United States Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg and Canadian Ambassador George Ignatieff, the Security Council today approved,13 to zero, a resolution introduced by Pakistan and Senegal urgently calling upon Israel to rescind all legislative and administrative measures and actions which “tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem.” Canada and the U.S. abstained in the final voting.
The Council called upon Israel to “desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem. The Secretary-General was asked to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the resolution.
Mr. Goldberg voiced an impassioned plea for explicit re-endorsement of the Middle East peace mission undertaken at the Council’s request by special envoy Gunnar V. Jarring and warned that the resolution before the body would endanger the success of the Jarring mission. The U.S., said Mr. Goldberg, deplores any unilateral actions regarding the status of Jerusalem, but he argued that “a peaceful settlement of the Middle East issue encompasses all aspects of the situation including Jerusalem.”
The resolution before the body, he said, “would isolate the question of Jerusalem.” He insisted that the Security Council’s resolution of Nov. 22, 1967 which resulted in the Jarring mission, “remain the touchstone” of the entire situation. The aim of the Council, Mr. Goldberg insisted, must be explicitly to support the Jarring mission, to call “upon all parties” to cooperate with Mr. Jarring and thereby help the establishment in the Middle East of a “permanent, just and lasting peace.”
CANADIAN SAYS ADOPTION WOULD BE STEP TOWARD SANCTIONS
Mr. Ignatieff, informing the Council that his delegation would abstain, warned that adoption of the draft “means that the Council is on the road toward voting sanctions.” He recalled that in yesterday’s brief debate Yakov A. Malik, chief representative of the Soviet Union, had virtually threatened the adoption of sanctions against Israel.” Mr. Malik told the Council that while the measure was acceptable to the Soviet Union, it should have been strengthened “against the illegal and expansionist aims of Israel against the Arab parts of Jerusalem.” He reiterated Soviet charges of Israeli “aggression and expansionism.” He said that the Kremlin stands ready to support action against Israel, and declared that Israel was obstructing the Jarring mission. Malik voiced “the determination of the Soviet Union to see to it that the Security Council force Israel to withdraw its troops from the occupied territories.”
Israel’s Ambassador Yosef Tekoah told the Council that the resolution “does not contribute to the attainment of peace but, on the contrary, deepens further the abyss of Arab belligerence.” Mr. Tekoah criticized the Council sharply for its failure to take any action whatever in the defense of Israel during most of the last 20 years. He said that today’s resolution “does not change or add to the Security Council’s disability in regard to Israel. But it does add to the determination of Israel, despite the malice of those who have injured us, to seek a just peace in the Middle East. Not the Security Council resolutions but a peaceful settlement will alter the situation.”
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.
