Tekoah Rejects Security Council Resolution Enjoining Changes in Jerusalem’s Status

“In a sense these resolutions are like certain currencies — the more they are printed, the less valuable they become,” said Ambassador Yosef Tekoah yesterday. The envoy thus expressed Israel’s rejection of the Security Council vote demanding that Israel obey resolutions enjoining any changes in the status of Jerusalem The Council adopted a resolution presented by Pakistan by 11 votes with four states abstaining. The abstainers were the United States, Finland, Colombia and Paraguay.

Voting for the resolution were Albania, Britain, China, France, Hungary, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal, Spain, the Soviet Union and Zambia. The British vote surprised the Israelis who had been led to believe that Lord Caradon, Britain’s envoy, would abstain.

The preamble to the resolution said that the statements heard in the Council reflected “universal outrage caused by the act of sacrilege in one of the venerated shrines of mankind.” This reference was to the Aug. 21 fire at the El Aksa mosque in Old Jerusalem, an event which outraged the Arab Moslem world and led to the Council session. In presenting Washington’s argument, U.S. Ambassador Charles W. Yost said that his Government believed that the resolution should have been confined to the question of the fire alone.

The resolution said that “the execrable act of desecration and profanation of the holy El Aksa Mosque emphasizes the immediate necessity of Israel desisting from acting in violation of (previous) resolutions (on Jerusalem’s status) and rescinding forthwith all measures and actions taken by it designed to alter the status of Jerusalem.”

The Council said that “any act of destruction or profanation of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in Jerusalem or any encouragement of, or connivance at, any such act may seriously endanger international peace and security.” The Council reaffirmed “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible.” The resolution was a compromise between the desires of conservative Moslem nations to focus on the religious issues and the militant Arabs who wanted to exploit the fire for political purposes. A young Australian Christian has confessed to setting the mosque fire.

Mr. Tekoah charged that the Soviet Union had ruled out its fitness to serve as a Mideast peacemaker by its incitement of the Arabs. He was replying to a statement by Council president Jacob Malik of the Soviet Union, who had taken the floor as the Soviet representative, that the resolution should have been tougher in stipulating Israeli “political and moral responsibility” for the fire.

Mr. Malik had said that Russia “will not accept maintenance of the present situation in the Middle East.” Mr. Tekoah replied that the combination of “name-calling, fact-twisting and sanctimonious protestations about Soviet love for religion confirm that the Soviet Union has not mended its ways.” Mr. Tekoah branded the resolution as a repetition of “inequitable and unrealistic views.” He noted that of the 11 nations voting for the resolution, six have no diplomatic relations with Israel. He said that the Council’s deliberations had clearly shown that Israel had no hand in the fire.