Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold told the General Assembly today it could take “collective measures” against Israel for failure to compel, with the UN resolution calling for withdrawal of all its forces from the Gaza and Akaba areas “without delay.” He said, however, such measures are not compulsory.
In some quarters Mr. Hammarskjold was seen as bolstering the demand of the Arab League representatives here for economic sanctions against Israel. However, the UN chief did warn the Assembly that stern measures could in some instances aggravate the situation by “introducing new elements of conflict.”
Highest authoritative UN Secretariat quarters indicated that Mr. Hammarskjoid does not want his views to be construed as an endorsement of sanctions or a rejection of such measures. These sources said he brought up the subject only because it was under wide public discussion and in order to warn the Assembly that, if it does vote sanctions, it do so “with its eyes wide open.”
Mr. Hammarskjold expressed his opinion on “collective measures” in his latest report on Israel’s failure to comply with troop withdrawal resolutions which he issued here today, while the Arab group was trying hard to line up the entire Afro-Asian bloc behind a sanctions resolution that would be presented to the next meeting of the Assembly, either tomorrow or Wednesday.
In his report, the Secretary General turned down every one of Israel’s requests, made orally to him or in memoranda handed to him, during the last three weeks, insisting that Israel must be assured that Egypt will not continue to claim “the right of belligerence.” With the report, Mr. Hammarskjold included Israel’s memoranda, submitted by Ambassador Aban Eban, head of the Israel delegation. The last of memoranda was handed in only at 1 A. M. today and reiterated Israel’s position, standing firm against completion of troop withdrawals without assurances of non-belligerence on the part of Egypt.
Mr. Hammarskjold never-asked the key non-belligerence of Egypt, as requested by Israel. On the other hand, he goes out of his way in his report to reiterate that Egypt has given him “reaffirmation” of “intent to observe fully” the armistice agreement of 1949. A spokesman for Mr. Hammarskjold refused to reveal when Egypt gave such. assurance, whether it was done orally or in writing, or whether the assurance came from Egypt’s representatives here headed by Cairo’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Mahmoud Fawzi.
Mr. Hammarskjold tells the Assembly in his report that Israel’s willingness to withdraw civilian as well as military forces from the Gaza Strip is necessary for fulfillment of the first of the two resolutions which calls for troop withdrawals. It is “unrealistic,” he holds, that the question of Gaza could be solved “while Israel remains in Gaza”
As for the Akaba area, the Secretary General declares that the stationing of the United Nations Emergency Force there, to guarantee freedom of shipping through the Gulf of Akaba, “would require Egyptian consent.”
Israel’s insistence on Egyptian assurance of non-belligerence is answered by Mr. Hammarskjold by saying that Israel itself “maintains a state of belligerence” by continuing to hold on to Gaza. He quotes one of his own earlier statements to the effect that “like the cease-fire, withdrawal is a preliminary and essential phase in a development through which a stable basis may be laid for peaceful conditions in the area.”
HAMMARSKJOLD WARNS ISRAEL OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAILURE OF U. N. EFFORT
The responsibility for any “failure” of the United Nations to effect peaceful conditions in the Egypt-Israel area, the UN Secretary General declares, would be Israel’s if it continues in its present position.
He then points out to the General Assembly that “collective measures” recommended by the Assembly could add emphasis” to earlier recommendations like the one calling for Israel’s complete and unconditional troop withdrawals. He tells the Assembly that such “collective measures could be interpreted as obligations under the United Nations Charter–which is, of course, more basic and would be more binding upon Israel than an Assembly recommendation,
“In the situation now facing the United Nations,” Mr. Hammarskjold concludes, “the General Assembly, as a matter of priority, may wish to indicate how it desires the Secretary General to proceed with further steps to carry out the relevant decisions of the General Assembly.” Thus Mr. Hammarskjold was seen clearly to ask the Assembly for authorization to implement “collective measures” against Israel.
EBAN STATES ISRAEL POSITION AGAINST WITHDRAWAL; SCORES HAMMARSKJOLD
Israel’s firm position against withdrawal without guarantees is summarized in Mr. Eban’s latest memorandum dated today, in which he once more insists that the Secretary General ask Egypt to answer the key questions. “The fact,” he states, “that I have not obtained assistance in receiving an official expression of Egypt’s intentions on belligerency deprives my government of an essential element for the consideration of a great variety of dependent problems.
“My government holds that it is one of the central functions of the high office of Secretary General to serve as a means for the interchange of proposals and ideas between member states, especially when normal methods of inter-state contact are not available, Mr. Eban points out. “In the light of past experience, and of recent Egyptian declarations, my government must in all prudence hold the following assumptions unless evidence to the contrary becomes available:
“1. That Egypt claims the withdrawal of Israel troops from her territory, while herself reserving belligerent rights to remain in effect after such withdrawal;
“2. That Egypt has not agreed that free navigation in the Gulf of Akaba will be ensured after Israel’s withdrawal, or that effective measures such as the stationing of units of UNEF should be instituted to ensure such continued freedom of navigation;
“3. That when the Suez Canal becomes physically opened for navigation Egypt will, as in the past, obstruct Israel’s exercise of her rights in the Canal under the 1888 convention;
“4. That the doctrine and practice of continuing belligerency will govern Egypt’s relations towards Israel in such matters as frontier raids and the non-recognition of Israel’s rights under the Charter.
“These are sombre and disquieting assumptions. But nothing has yet happened to justify any contrary assumption on our part. I note, in particular, that you did not feel able to state today that Egypt’s declaration of adherence to the 1949 armistice agreement includes the acceptance by her of an obligation to abstain from the claim and exercise of belligerent rights in the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Akaba or elsewhere.
“Against this background, it has become clear to the Government of Israel that the withdrawal of troops, without simultaneous action to prevent the renewal of hostilities by land and sea, would in fact lead to the resumption of such conflict. It is note worthy that in adopting resolutions calling respectively for the withdrawal of troops and for measures to ensure progress toward peaceful conditions the General Assembly declined to separate its action under these two headings. It has voted on the explicit assumption that action in one field without action in the other would jeopardize the prospects of peace,” Mr. Eban stresses in his memorandum.
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.
