U.s., Russia Disagree on Propriety of Council Sessions to Hear Israeli Complaint

The United States and the Soviet Union today took diametrically opposed views on whether the Security Council should have been convened to hear Israel’s charges that Egyptian commandos ambushed and killed two Israeli soldiers on the East Bank of the Suez Canal and kidnapped a third Aug. 26.

Ambassador George Ball, permanent representative of the United States, declared that the evidence found by the United Nations military observers was consistent with Israel’s allegations and that the United Arab Republic had made “an unsupported, limited denial, stating only that its forces had not taken part.” The evidence pointed to the fact that this was an unprovoked attack by armed men with “a compelling inference, if not of instigation or encouragement, at least of acquiescence by the Government of the UAR,” Mr. Ball said.

But Yakov Malik, head of the Soviet delegation, called the Israeli charges “a pettifogging complaint” and said the Security Council could “not take it seriously.” He wondered why it was brought to the Security Council and why the Council had been convened. Mr. Malik went on to charge Israel with making a complaint against a country against which it had committed aggression, “a country whose land it is forcibly occupying.”

The arguments in the Security Council today, as yesterday, centered around Israel’s charges of a gross violation of the cease-fire on the part of Egypt and Egypt’s counter-charge that Israel probably fabricated the whole incident. The Egyptian delegate, Mohammed Awad el-Kony, disputed Israel Ambassador Yosef Tekoah’s statement yesterday that the report by Lt. Gen Odd Bull, chief of the UN observer corps, corroborated Israel’s version of the incident. Gen. Bull’s report, Mr. el-Kony said, “pointed out that the bodies mentioned had not been seen and that the UN observers could not verify that two Israel soldiers had been killed.”

Ambassador Ball said that several weeks ago the representatives of Jordan and other Arab states had taken the position that the Jordanian Government had no responsibility for acts of terror in the areas occupied by Israeli forces. The United States refused to accept that disclaimer, he said, because every government was responsible for the control of its own population, and not merely its official armed forces. If this be the case for the West Bank of the Jordan, a heavily populated area, it is far more the case for the East Bank of the Suez Canal, an empty place where it was unlikely that any terrorist activity could occur that did not originate from the other side of the canal within UAR responsibility. Mr. Ball said the United States felt that the Egyptian Government should be held strictly accountable for observing the cease-fire and called on the Security Council to treat violations even-handedly and not to follow a double standard.

Lord Caradon, representing the United Kingdom, welcomed Israel’s decision to bring the matter before the Council. He said that if the soldier cited by Israel had indeed been wounded, the Council should be satisfied that he would be treated and promptly returned. Speaking near the end of the session. Ambassador Tekoah said the world still waited for the Council to condemn the murder of Israelis and not countenance cease-fire violations. He called Egypt’s attitude at the Council “irresponsible.” Israel’s purpose in coming to the UN body, he said, was to strengthen the cease-fire. He said he hoped this effort would be supported. The Council adjourned without setting a time for another meeting.