U.S. Britain, France, Turkey Introduce “cease Fire” Resolution on Syrian-israel Dispute

The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Turkey introduced a resolution in the U.N. Security Council today calling upon “the parties or persons” in the Syrian-Israel dispute to cease fire and “to comply with the obligations and commitments” of the general armistice agreement.

In submitting the resolution, the sponsors, both in the resolution’s text and in their speeches, carefully refrained from fixing responsibility for the hostilities or definitely declaring Syria rather than Arab irregulars, as a party to the dispute.

Speaking for Israel, however, Abba S, Eban proposed an amendment to the four power resolution which would specify that all military and paramilitary forces be withdrawn from the demilitarized zone. He said” “My Government must continue to Pursue its unremitting efforts to secure a due and proper determination” of Syria a the aggressor. He declared that such a finding was “the bounden duty of the Security Council and a crucial test of its moral capacity to approach the parties for a settlement of this conflict.”

He insisted that this was necessary because Israel was convinced that the Syrian objective was “the maintenance of tension and violence in a rain hope to arrest the development and progress of the area.” Once again he laid out detailed evidence of Syrian assaults on Israeli territory, informing the Council that Israel had conducted the U.N. observers and “service attaches of disinterested powers” who were able to confirm the existence of regular Syrian Army troops and equipment on Israel soil.

U.S. DELEGATE INSISTS ON UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF “CEASE FIRE” ORDER

In introducing the resolution, Warren R. Austin, head of the U.S. delegation, declared that many reports had been received that fighting was still going on in and around the demilitarized zone, but said the information so far was “too conflicting” for the Security Council to assess responsibility for the outbreak at this time. The important thing, declared Mr. Austin was that the fighting must stop. Otherwise the peace of the entire area would be jeopardized. This situation, he felt, demanded immediate action by the Security Council.

Mr. Austin went on to say that the action of the Security Council would be directed to the parties and persons in the area without prejudice to further deliberation by the council. Inter, in assessing responsibility for the outbreak, the council night want to take into account the readiness of the parties to comply with council directives. Neither Israel nor Syria could lay down any conditions for carrying out a security council cease-fire order, he added. The fighting had to be ended by ###open compliance on the part of all concerned. Only then could the matter be properly investigated.

Mr. Austin thought it proper to remind both parties of their obligations under the charter and their obligations as signatories of the armistice agreement. “The apparent serious threat to peace and the obvious breach of the armistice agreement permit no other course of action,” he declared.

The United States representative hoped that the resolution would be adopted today, without delay, as a cease-fire was necessary to safeguard the security of the area and to permit proper investigation of the facts. Adoption of the resolution would in no way mean, he added, that the Security Council was dropping its discussion of the Palestine question. This was merely an emergency step, required by the circumstances. Debate on the main question should continue afterward.

BRITAIN “GRAVELY PERTURBED” BY THE SYRIAN-ISRAELI FIGHTING, DELEGATE SAYS

The British delegate, Sir G. Idwyn Jebb, said his government had been “gravely perturbed” by the “recent deterioration” in the relations between Israel and Syria and by the outbreak of the fighting in the demilitarize zone. This development was “especially unfortunate” he observed, in view of the fact that it had occurred when the Security Council was considering how peaceful conditions could best be rested, and the points in dispute be resolved.

Sir Gladwyn said he did not wish to express any opinion on the responsibility for the fresh outbreak of fighting. However, the fighting seemed to be clearly contrary to the armistice agreement and to the U.N. Charter, and the United Kingdom delegation hoped the joint resolution would be adopted by the Security Council “Whatever the provocation may be, in the view of my government, ### should first be ### through the machinery provided in the general armistice agreement and not through the resort to armed force,” Sir Gladwyn declared.

The French representative, Francis ###, said that his government was viewing the “deplorable events” on the Syrian-Israeli frontline with “grave concern.” He asked for the immediate adoption of four-power resolution. (No vote on the resolution has been taken by the time the Bulletin went to press.)