Sharett Reports to Knesset on Negev Ambush; Text of His Address

The full text of the address delivered today by Premier and Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett in the Israel Parliament, reviewing the massacre by Jordanians of 11 Israelis in the Negev and Israel’s decision to leave the Israel-Jordan Mixed Armistice Commission, reads:

The entire nation was shocked beyond measure last Wednesday at the news of the terrible outrage which occurred at noon of that day at Maaleh Akrabim (Scorpion Pass) in the Negev. A bus proceeding from Eilath to Beersheba was ambushed and attacked by an armed Arab band. The first volley of shots killed the driver and hit several passengers. The immobilized vehicle was subjected to a hail of bullets from all sides and immediately became a death trap. The murderers broke in, killing the survivors and wounded. Altogether 11 men, women and children were killed. Four persons escaped, of whom two were seriously wounded.

It was soon evident that the attack bore the unmistakable character of a military operation, properly planned and methodically executed. The gangsters came from afar, marching to a fixed destination. They were not engaged in looting, but bent on murder. Nothing had occurred in that neighborhood which could have served as the slightest provocation for the massacre.

A vital, internal communications artery deep in Israel territory was the target. This was the gravest and most brazen act of violence perpetrated in this country since the termination of hostilities in the War of Liberation, being in effect a war-like act.

Footprints clearly indicated the gang’s Jordanian origin, Two tracks were found, one leading toward the ambush from the Jordanian frontier, the other, backwards. United Nations observers took an active part in following the footprints; the operation was carried out by expert trackers and trained police dogs.

In this work and in the investigation of the circumstances of the crime on the scene they faithfully carried out their duty under the most difficult circumstances. The footprints were not traced right up to the frontier because of the terrain’s rocky nature, but from the point where the tracks ended only a narrow gorge leads to the Jordanian frontier, with impassably rocky ground on both sides.

SAYS EVIDENCE SHOWS MURDERERS HAD EMERGED FROM JORDAN

The Israel Government received information from the most reliable sources that the gang crossed the border prior to the crime at a certain spot heading westward, also the names of three of the gangsters. Even without taking into account these data, the tracks and the general picture of the outrage are evidence that the perpetrators had emerged from Jordan. This is a patent truth which no amount of pedantry and formalistic quibbling could cover up.

Yet, as the House is aware, this was not the finding of the Mixed Armistice Commission. The complaint lodged through the Israel delegation laid responsibility for the crime at the Jordan Government’s doors, since under the provisions of the armistice agreements each government is responsible for the crimes committed by people coming from its territory and breaking into a neighboring state.

The Jordan delegation did not hesitate to blame the Israel Government. It asserted that Israelis had committed the murders–Israelis who were “Arabs through race and Jews through religion.” as stated by the Jordan representative who found the occasion suitable for linguistic exercises. This insolent and preposterous invention, which added insult to injury and ought to have served as further proof of Jordan’s guilt, assumed the character of an alternate version in the proceedings, co-equal in weight with the Israel indictment.

In this developing deadlock the Mixed Armistice Commission chairman was called upon to cast the decisive vote. As the United Nations representative it was up to him to express himself on this crucial question. As the conscience and authority of the international organization charged with supervising and implementation of the armistice agreements he was duty-bound to uphold the aggrieved party and condemn the aggressor.

But the chairman chose not to exercise his authority. Like one of those in the famous purgatory of Dante’s “Inferno” who took no sides between good and evil, truth and falsehood, ne neither repudiated the Jordanian fabrication nor supported Israel’s draft resolution.

Thus the deadlock was completed and no decision was pronounced by the commission on an outrage the nature of which shocked world opinion and which stands cut as a case sui generis in the annals of the armistice, already replete with acts of violence.

SAYS ARMISTICE REGIME FAILS TO PREVENT BLOODSHED

There were a number of cases wherein Jordan’s guilt was clear and in which the Mixed Armistice Commission discussion ended without result following the chairman’s abstention on grounds of insufficient evidence. But this case exceeded all bounds.

Yet this is not a matter of personal indictment. The problem’s crux is the armistice regime’s fate as reflected in the outcome of the examination. The momentous question is how the United Nations armistice supervision machinery has stood the test of its efficacy as an international body in connection with this exceptionally grave incident. The armistice regime proved incapable of preventing blood from being shed through lightening swiftness and fiendish ferocity.

United Nations observers are not, in truth, military commanders charged with frontier defence nor sentries or lookouts. Nobody expects them to perform such a task, which is the exclusive prerogative and responsibility of sovereign states.

But they have been invested with authority and charged with the duty of identifying and condemning that party which is guilty of violation of the armistice pacts through acts of lawlessness and aggression. This authority entails the exposure of aggression to international opprobrium for curbing the urge to further crimes and for creating a deterrent against the recurrence of murderous attacks.

IMPOTENCE OF ARMISTICE COMMISSION MAY HAVE FAR-REACHING RESULT

The significance of this authority increases seven-fold when invoked in connection with such a revolting affair as the Maaleh Akrabin bloodbath. The failure to exercise that authority in this particular case is as devastating as the responsibility was great. Leaving undecided the question of guilt on this occasion proclaims the complete moral bankruptcy of the entire machinery of the armistice agreements’ implementation and supervision.

Such a termination of the investigation and discussion is tantamount to a pronouncement of the complete breakdown of authority and a situation wherein everybody can do what is right in his own eyes. We cannot, however, continue this disconcerting manifestation of helplessness. We cannot but have deep regrets also for the sake of the United Nations whose prestige concerns us no less than anyone else. But this point is not merely international.

The results of the default on this occasion are far more pernicious and far-reaching. This demonstration of the Mixed Armistice Commission’s impotence, capable of concluding an examination without reaching a conclusion, is liable to unleash violence and remove all brakes from the lust for slaughter. The record of the Mixed Armistice Commission’s consideration of the Maaleh Akrabin incident is bound to serve as conclusive evidence that one can transgress without risking condemnation and commit murder with impunity.

The government of the country bordering on Israel, responsible for preserving the armistice with us, cannot but draw the lesson from this experience that it is not incumbent upon it to make any effort to stem the tide of lawlessness and that it can afford to treat as a matter of small concern whatever outrage is committed by its own nationals beyond its borders.

ISRAEL DOES NOT INTEND TO EMBARK ON AGGRESSION

This experience must lead to far-reaching conclusions regarding our own orientation–how to organize our own defenses to forestall evil designs against us. In the first place, we are charged with safeguarding our own communications lines. Concerning the Israel-Jordan Mixed Armistice Commission which failed in its responsibility and disappointed our confidence, we reached the conclusion that there is no more sense in further participation.

In making this decision it is not the intention of Israel to repudiate the armistice agreement responsibility with Jordan. We do not have the intention of embarking on aggression or indulging in provocation by being a party to turning the armistice into a farce through participating in an institution which betrayed its primary duty of denouncing breaches of the armistice.

Our position must not be interpreted that we shall not seek to denounce this crime before the United Nations forum. While discontinuing its participation in the Mixed Armistice Commission, Israel has turned to the Western Powers with an urgent request that they call an immediate session of the Security Council to discuss this outrage.

In asking this we are not placing on their shoulders a burden they are not used to carrying; they themselves showed an alertness and readiness to initiate such discussions as a result of the October happenings. Israel’s Ambassadors in the capitals of the United States, Britain and France will now address this request to the governments.

The chain of bloody events against the background of incitement against Israel may lead to incalculable results. The Israel Government has tried to stem this tide, its latest step was the calling of Jordan to a conference under Article XII of the Armistice Agreement, to which Jordan has not responded despite its duty under the armistice.

With all the importance of the United Nations’ responsibility, we must not forget that the bulwark of our security is our own self-reliant strength which will be reinforced with help from whomever may be ready to help, foremost among whom is the Jewish people. As long as there is no peace our demand must be arms for Israel which seeks peace and is forced to defend itself; and not to the Arabs who maintain and plan aggression.