Israel economic sources expressed shocked surprise today at the refusal of the Soviet Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Tribunal to permit Israel to call witnesses in the $2,300,000 suit for damages against the Soviet Oil Export Company for cancelling an oil supply agreement during the Sinai operation. These sources asserted that such a decision was contrary to all juridical procedures in such cases.
Under the original Russian-Israel trade agreement, the tribunal was agreed on as the authority to hear any disputes emerging from the treaty and Israel asked for permission to call key Soviet trade officials in the current hearings in Moscow
(The New York Times reported from Moscow today that the Israeli lawyers arguing the case had to resort to filibuster and a plea of poor health in order to get a week-end recess in the suddenly speeded-up case. Friday’s hearing, the first in 12 weeks, was the third of the entire case, which opened December 4, 1957.)
It was noted here that initially the Soviets employed delaying tactics, repeatedly postponing the arbitration hearings for long periods, on the excuse that one of the arbitrators was ill. Israel experts suggested that the Israel oil case conflicted with Moscow’s hopes of establishing the tribunal as an impartial forum to help foster trade relations with non-Communist countries, and that the Soviets hoped that the delaying tactics would lead finally to a fizzling out of the Israel suit.
They pointed out that the world press reacted, not by forgetting the case, but by publishing critical articles questioning the value of Soviet trade commitments. It was believed here that in response, the Soviets have decided to rush the case through the tribunal in the hope that after it was settled, the world of commerce would forget about it.
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.
