Shock and Anger Sweeps Through Jewish, Non-jewish Communities

Anger swept through the Jewish community and among many non-Jews here today in the wake of the United Nations General Assembly’s 105-4 vote late yesterday recog- nizing the Palestine Liberation Organization and inviting it to participate in debate on the Palestinian Question. Israel will survive the vote “but the UN may not,” declared Rabbi Israel Miller, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations which represents 32 of the country’s largest national Jewish religious and secular bodies.

“By permitting the PLO terrorists to shoot their way into the General Assembly, the UN has destroyed whatever pretensions remained that it was a forum of adjudication of international disputes and the keeping of international peace,” Rabin Miller said. An equally bitter statement was issued by Sen. Jacob K. Javits (R.NY) who branded the General Assembly’s action “an unwarranted and dangerous precedent. I condemn this action and I urge the President to do so,” Javits said.

Although the outcome of the General Assembly vote late yesterday afternoon was anticipated, the lopsided majority given the PLO and the realization that for the first time in UN history such a group was being accorded a privilege and prestige granted to no other non-governmental body, sent waves of shock and anger through veteran newsmen covering the world organization. Several correspondents were brusque and severe in their questioning of PLO representatives at a press conference called by the Libyan delegation shortly after the vote was taken.

DEMONSTRATION SET FOR WEDNESDAY

At the same time. Bayard Rustin, the civil rights advocate, announced that he will lead a protest demonstration of young people, composed largely of minority groups including Blacks, Puerto Ricans and Jews, outside the UN tomorrow in statement issued by the Youth Institute for Peace in the Middle East, Rustin referred to the PLO as “a blood-stained terrorist gang whose leaders should be in jail, not addressing the UN.”

He said that “The Arab states who claim to be so concerned with the plight of the Palestinians have never given a single cent out of their vast oil revenues to help the miserable Palestinian refugees.” The demonstration will take place between 11 a.m.-1 p.m. at the Isaiah Wall.

COUNCILS TRUE AIMS OF PLO

The PLO representatives were elated by yesterday’s vote. Prior to the balloting they said their sole purpose was to bring their message to the UN. Afterwards, however. in what amounted to sheer bluster, they confessed that their aim was the destruction of Israel. Dr. Nabeel Shaath, who was Introduced by the Libyans as the head of the PLO delegation to the UN, issued a verbose printed statement, praising and justifying the General Assembly’s action.

When pressed by reporters to state his organization’s aims, Shaath declared that “the Palestinians want all of Palestine (Israel). They will not be satisfied with the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” He also told reporters that the PLO is opposed to the Security Council Resolution 242 and stated that those who created it “will have to undo it.” (The British and U.S. representatives reaffirmed that their governments will continue to support that resolution,)

Asked if the PLO would stop hijacking planes and end its other acts of violence, Shaath said the PLO “is going to act responsibly” from now on but promised that violence would be continued inside Israel “to liberate our homeland.” He announced that “a full delegation at the highest level of the PLO will shortly arrive in New York” to participate in the General Assembly’s debate on the Palestine Question.

U.S. VOTE PRAISED BY PRESIDENTS CONFERENCE

Rabbi Miller said that the Presidents Conference was “gratified” that the United States, which voted against the PLO resolution, “has once again taken a stand for humanity and decency and against the cynical acceptance of murder as the common currency of international politics.”

He assailed the “craven surrender” to Arab pressure of those allies of the U.S. that voted for the resolution or abstained. “By giving legitimacy and an international platform to the assassins of American diplomats in Khartoum, international airline passengers in Athens and Israeli school children in Maalot, these countries brand themselves as accomplices to murder and as willing partners in the attempt to liquidate a fellow UN member,” Rabbi Miller said.

Seymour Graubard, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, denounced the UN for “legitimizing terror and murder” and declared that “It is not Israel that lost the vote, it is. the United Nations.” He stated that by inviting individuals who are not representatives of nation states “but rather are accessories to plane hijackings, kidnappings, indiscriminate bombings and murders,” it proves once again “that the world organization is a kangaroo court where Israel is concerned.”

Dr. Joseph P. Sternstein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, called on the United States “to reevaluate its relationship to the United Nations” as a result of the Assembly vote. He expressed confidence “that American public opinion, the government and the Congress of the United States will recognize that the basic principles of the United Nations have been subverted, possibly beyond repair, by this vote.”

In Washington, B’nai B’rith national president David M. Blumberg declared that the UN, by its capitulation to the powerful forces behind Arab terrorism, has generally prejudiced its credibility and prestige.” He stated that “the moral squalor of the act is matched only by its clear subversion of Secretary of State Kissinger’s efforts to negotiate peace in the Middle East.”

Ambassador John Scali, the U.S. representative to the UN, did not participate in the debate that preceded the vote yesterday. He told the General Assembly afterwards that the U.S. did not lack understanding and sympathy “for the very real concerns” of the Palestinians, (See Scali’s complete statement in separate story.)

VOTING PATTERN DISCERNED

The voting yesterday reflected in large measure what Israeli Ambassador Yosef Tekoah termed a mechanical vote. But many delegates voting in favor of the resolution or abstaining reflected the foreign policy quest of their governments for a dialogue with the Arab nations and for closer co-operation with Arab states in order to facilitate and secure economic trade.

Members of the European Economic Community did not vote as a united bloc on the resolution. While France, Ireland and Italy supported it, Britain. Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and West Germany abstained. Other abstentions Included Australia, Burma, Canada and Iceland.

The Latin American countries voted almost as a bloc for the resolution. Those voting favorably included Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico. Panama. Peru and Venezuela. Abstentions in the Latin American camp included Colombia. Costa Rica. Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Uruguay, Two Latin American countries. Bolivia and the Dominican Republic voted against the measure. Chile and Honduras cast no votes. Several African countries also cast no vote. These Included Lesotho, Malawi. South Africa and Swaziland.

The General Assembly action came while Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger was in the Middle East meeting with Arab and Israeli, leaders in an effort to get Arabs and Israelis closer to negotiations and to ease Inter-Arab differences in advance of the Arab summit conference in Rabat. Morocco starting Oct. 26. Kissinger is due to return tomorrow to Washington.

TEXT OF SCALI’S STATEMENT TO THE UN IN EXPLAINING THE U.S. VOTE

“It should be clear from many statements by my government over the past months and years that our vote today in no way reflects a lack of understanding or sympathy for the very real concerns and yearning for justice of the Palestinian people. Rather it reflects our consistent conviction that the justice they seek will come only as part of a peace that is just for all the parties.

“This just peace must be negotiated with utmost care, and must lead to an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, at the heart of which we all recognize lies the Palestinian problem. Our vote also reflects a deep concern that the resolution before us could be interpreted by some as prejudging that negotiating process and make a durable settlement more difficult to achieve.

“In that sense, the resolution could have the ultimate effect of working against the interests of a Palestinian settlement. The world knows how tirelessly we have sought to move the Middle East from the scourge of war to the path of peace. For us to have voted other than we did would be inconsistent with and harmful to our efforts to help promote a just and lasting peace that takes into account the legitimate needs of all the states and peoples in the Middle East.

“I should also like to express my government profound concern over the resolution’s departure from the long-standing precedent that only representatives of governments should be allowed to participate in plenary deliberations. Have we created a dangerous precedent which may return to haunt this organization –perhaps cripple its effectiveness?

“Mr. President, I want to make clear that the only basis for a just negotiated settlement is and must remain Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The resolution passed today cannot alter the basis, and our efforts will go forward in that established and widely accepted framework.”