Israel’s interest in the current Middle East crisis, which has been deliberately kept in the background at the emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly, was brought into the open here today on two levels.
On the one hand, Yugoslavia’s Foreign Minister, Koca Popovic, in the first address of this afternoon’s Assembly session, brought to the surface the report that had been whispered for days by some of the delegates to the effect that there was alleged danger of Israel marching into Jordan, in the event of the fall of young King Hussein’s Government.
On the other hand, all here were studying closely the resolution introduced yesterday by Norway and six other members with the backing of Britain and the United States. Vigorous efforts were being made to trace in the vaguely-worded Norwegian draft the possible benefits to Israel and perhaps the dangers to Israel that might result in Assembly adoption.
Mr. Popovic, in his address, pulling no punches about the Israel-Jordan rumors, told the Assembly: “The argument is frequently brought forth from certain quarters that Israel would take military action in the event of a change of regime in Jordan. Those who say this are, in our opinion, rendering a very bad service both to the cause of peace and to that of Arab-Israeli relations. One should not anticipate the possibility of such military action and thus sanction it in advance, but rather seek to exclude it and make it impossible. To do this would surely be well within the capabilities of the United Nations.”
UN ASSEMBLY DRAFT RESOLUTION PARTLY REFLECTS ISRAEL’S MOODS
The Afro-Asian bloc, which scheduled a meeting for this afternoon, reportedly had the Israel-Jordan rumor on its agenda, although the principle aim of the caucus was understood to be an effort to amend the Norwegian resolution or possibly to work out a substitute draft less vague and much tougher in condemning the presence of Anglo-American troops in Jordan and Lebanon.
Meanwhile, however, careful scrutiny of the seven-nation draft resolution demonstrated in some major respects, Israel’s influence was clearly observable. Israel has been seeking to persuade the Assembly to adopt a firm stand on the right of all states in the Middle East to freedom from threats or aggression. It was pointed out here that the resolution met Israel’s desire expressly in reaffirming that all member states should “refrain from any threats or acts, direct or indirect, aimed at impairing the freedom, independence or integrity of any state, or at fomenting civil strife and subverting the will of the people of any state.”
Diplomats noted that this phrasing was not restricted merely to the Arab states but embraced the entire Middle East region, including Israel. It was also noted that the resolution calls on all member states to “ensure their conduct by word and deed,” the wording specifically embracing “the general area of the Near East.” Thus Israel was assured that if and when the United Nations sets up a service to monitor radio broadcasts which “foment civil strife,” the hate propaganda transmitted by the Arab states would be reported to the entire United Nations.
It was noted also, on the negative side for Israel, that no distinction had been made so far between the Middle East states that are now under Nasser domination and those states, like Israel, against whom Nasserism is a definite threat.
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.
