Search JTA's historical archive dating back to 1923

Egypt Appeals Against Decision to Release Bat Galim and Crew

November 22, 1954
See Original Daily Bulletin From This Date
Advertisement

The Egyptian Government has appealed to Maj. Gen. E. L. M. Burns, United Nations truce supervisor, against the decision of the Israel-Egyptian Mixed Armistice Commission throwing out Egypt’s complaint against the crew of the Israel vessel Bat Galim and demanding the release of the vessel and the freeing of the crew, Radio Cairo announced last night.

The Cairo broadcast said the Egyptian Government had rejected the MAC’s findings and had asked Gen. Burns to give the matter another hearing before a special committee under his chairmanship. The Israel crew members will be kept in prison, the radio said.

The MAC decision Friday termed “unfounded” the Egyptian charge that the Bat Galim, seized by Egypt on September 28, had opened fire on and sunk an Egyptian fishing boat near the Suez Canal and that two Egyptian fishermen had been killed in the incident. On this complaint the UN chairman of the MAC, Danish Col. Carl Bartholdy, voted with the Israelis. This vote adopted an Israel-sponsored resolution rejecting the Egyptian charge and calling for the release of the 10 Israel crew members.

On the Egyptian charge that Israel had violated the armistice agreement by sending one of its vessels into “Egyptian territorial” waters–the Suez Canal–the chairman abstained and the resolution failed of passage. The Suez Convention of 1888 recognizes the canal as an international waterway.

Explaining his vote on the Egyptian complaint, Col, Bartholdy said that the armistice agreement did not cover the claim made by gypt that sending of a ship through the canal was a violation. He noted that the two countries did have an agreement calling for return of each other’s ships when they entered the territorial waters of the other state.

In Jerusalem, official circles interpreted the MAC’s action as meaning that Egypt must release the Bat Galim’s crew without further negotiation. Continued detention meant further violation of the armistice pact and further contempt for the UN’s processes, these circles said.

Recommended from JTA

Advertisement