U.N. Security Council Resumes Debate on Egypt’s Blockade of Suez Canal Against Israel

The United Nations Security Council today resumed debate on Israel’s complaint against Egypt’s three-year-old blockade of Suez Canal traffic bound for Israel. Ambassador Warren R. Austin, head of the American delegation at the United Nations who took over the Council presidency for August, presided at the session which opened with a speech by Mahmoud Fawzi of Egypt.

The Egyptian delegate, who spoke for more than an hour, told the Council that Egypt fails to see in her blockade of the Canal any violation of international law, or of the U.N. Charter, or even of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice agreement. He argued that “the Israeli complaint has no leg to stand on” and that Egypt was forced to institute the blockade in order to prevent war materials from reaching Israel.

Attacking Israel and “the wild ambition of world political Zionism,” the Egyptian delegate emphasized that Egypt and Israel were still legally at war. He noted that the Western powers restricted shipments of strategic materials to the Soviet sphere even though “there is no state of war.” He warned those “who choose to support and stand behind the unbound hooliganism of Israel in the Middle East” that they are “fishing for trouble.”

BRITISH DELEGATE REFUTES EGYPT’S ARGUMENTS; CALLS FOR U.N. ACTION

Sir Gladwyn Jebb of Britain labelled the Egyptian blockade an “abuse of belligerent rights” and asserted that the Council should “exercise its undoubted authority” if the attitude of the Egyptian Government is not modified. He added, however, that he was encouraged to believe that such a modification would be forthcoming and he expressed the hope that the restrictions at the Canal would be lifted voluntarily.

The British delegate told the Security Council that Britain could not accept Fawzi Bey’s legal argument. He quoted Dr. Ralph Bunche, Gen. William E. Riley and previous Security Council’s resolutions to the effect that the armistice agreement prohibited such a “hostile act” as the Suez blockade. He said that Egypt had no right to claim self-defense since there were no hostilities and since Egypt was not under even threat of attack.

Sir Gladwyn recalled that in the Council last November he had emphasized that to Britain the Egyptian action interfered with freedom of intonations of the Haifa oil refinery, and contributed to tension and unrest in the Middle East. He said that the importance of these factors had increased in the meantime and urged the Council to take action if there was no other way to settle the problem.

ISRAELI DELEGATE COUNTERS EGYPTIAN ARGUMENTATION; ANALYZES THE ISSUE

In a speech heavy with irony, sarcasm and vitriol, Abba Eban of Israel castigated Egypt as a “pioneer of post-war aggression” who “comes here in immaculate virtue to claim international sanction for the right of war.” He told the Security Council that “the 50 pages of Egyptian argumentation” are an escape into totally extraneous issues.” However, he said, when Israel’s honor was attacked, it was necessary for him to defend that honor.

Point by point, he countered the Egyptian argumentation on the Arab refugee problem, the meaning of the armistice agreement and the question of who has been attacking whom in the long list of grievances that have at various times come before the Mixed Armistice Commissions. He gave the Council to understand, nevertheless, that none of these matters came close to relevance on the subject currently before the Council. The issue, he maintained, was whether, after the U.N. Charter and the unique form of the Israeli-Egyptian armistice agreement calling for no further hostile acts, a state could ask the U.N. Security Council to accept and sanction belligerent action.

The Council then adjourned, scheduling its next session for Tuesday of next week.