The Security Council adopted today a resolution calling for “rigorous” respect of its cease-fire order in the Middle East and urging again full support by all parties for the peace mission of special UN representative Dr. Gunnar V. Jarring. Israel promptly assailed the resolution as “another expression of the double standard” of the Council on Middle East issues and said it would “continue to fulfill its obligations to protect its citizens, military and civilian, and the territories under its control.”
The resolution was approved by 14 of the 15 Security Council members. Algeria abstained. The Algerian delegate said it had done so because there would be no “real solution” to the Middle East crisis until the Security Council acted to force an end of Israel’s occupation of the Arab territories.
Josef Tekoah, Israel’s Ambassador, emphasized that the resolution had made no reference to the Israeli complaint on which Israel had asked for the Council meeting – an Egyptian ambush on Aug. 26 in which commandos crossed the Suez Canal and killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped a third. Egypt disclaimed both knowledge and responsibility for the incident and, in previous debate, charged Israel with faking the incident, a stand supported by Soviet delegate Yaakov Malik.
Mr. Tekoah stressed the fact that the resolution made no reference to that incident and that it “falls short of effective equitable action to halt Egyptian aggression.” He declared that “in its detachment from the Israeli complaint,” the resolution discriminated against Israel “and its people, against Israel’s right to full security from Egyptian attacks under the cease-fire, against the Israeli dead, wounded and captured in wanton Egyptian violations of the cease-fire.”
He also emphasized that “to stay Egyptian acts of aggression and in an endeavor to allay the tension engendered by them,” Israel had had “recourse to all available United Nations machinery” in the hope that the Council would “condemn the military attacks on Israel, call on Egypt to prevent their recurrence, ascertain the fate of the Israeli soldier abducted by the Egyptians on Aug. 26 and return him to Israel.”
“We now leave the Security Council table disappointed again and disenchanted,” he continued. “The outcome of the deliberations can under no circumstances be regarded as a satisfactory response to our just complaint nor does it accord fully with the responsibilities of the Security Council under the United Nations charter.” He added that the Council deliberations had, at least, “helped to unmask Egypt’s attitude and designs” and that the world had taken notice of Egypt’s “aggressive policy and actions which threaten the maintenance of the cease-fire and of Egypt’s callous attempt to shirk responsibility.”
The Israeli envoy said that Israel had cooperated and would continue to cooperate with Ambassador Jarring “toward attainment of agreement on a just and lasting peace” and that Israel would continue “to observe scrupulously the cease-fire with Egypt on the basis of reciprocity.” But, he also said, “Israel will continue to insist that Egypt prevent any attacks in violation of the cease-fire; Israel will continue to demand the return of the captured Israeli soldier; Israel will continue to fulfill its obligations to protect its citizens, military and civilian, and the territories under its control.”
In the discussion following adoption of the resolution, only Paraguay referred to the incident on which Israel had asked for the Council meeting, and that was only by indirection. The theme of all of the brief speeches was the urgency that all countries do nothing which would hamper Dr. Jarring’s mission, and that Israel and the Arab states should abide strictly by the cease-fire. Egypt said that the Council should act immediately to ask Israel to accept the Nov. 22, 1967 Council peace resolution.
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.
