Security Council Hears Egypt’s Arguments on Anti-israel Blockade

Egypt today insisted at the United Nations Security Council that it has the right to search Israel-bound ships passing through the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Eilath, and charged the Israel complaint against the Egyptian restrictions lacked “seriousness.”

Major General Abdel Hamid Ghaleb, member of the Egyptian delegation, told the Security Council that although Israel and Egypt have signed an armistice agreement, a state of war still exists between the two countries. “A state of war gives belligerents certain rights,” he said. “Foremost among them is the uncontestable right of visit and search of ships in territorial waters, in ports, in mid-ocean and in enemy waters, with a view to confiscating what is legally considered war contra-end,” he argued.

Emphasizing that he bases his argument on “rules of international law,” the Egyptian representative claimed that “nowhere in the U. N. Charter could a provision of found to modify these rules.” He emphasized that Egypt will continue its practice of searching ships bound for Israel through the Suez Canal “until a state of peace is established and as long as our very existence is threatened by aggressive and hostile Zionism.”

ISRAEL SAYS BLOCKADE DOES NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL PACT

Gen. Ghaleb insisted that the Egyptian blockade against Israel does not violate the Constantinople Convention of 1888. He claimed that this international pact which safeguards the free use of the Suez Canal in peace and war, without distinction of flag, reserved to Egypt “full defensive rights.”

“With Zionist expansion growing from a nightmare into an ugly daylight fact, with the threats of Israel to force her flagships through the Suez Canal and Egyptian territorial waters, could the United Nations organ established for the preservation of peace deny Egypt her right to self-preservation?” the Egyptian representative argued.

Egypt was well aware, he said, of the Security Council’s resolution of September 1, 1951. Egypt was equally aware that the Council in adopting that resolution, had used itself “on considerations other than the essentially legal aspects of the case.” The aim of the Council had been to take some political step toward the final settlement of the Palestine question, but experience had shown to what that had led. It certainly had not failed “to accelerate the tempo of Israeli aggression and Zionist expansion.” General Ghaleb concluded by saying that his government trusted that the attitude of the Council would be determined by the facts, and that the Council would “refrain from recreating problems the Council itself” was “established to solve.”

AMBASSADOR EBAN TAKES ISSUE WITH EGYPT’S ARGUMENTS

Israel Ambassador Abba S. Eban told the Security Council that “a very grave turn” had been taken “in what was already a serious situation.” The Security Council had heard “a firm and defiant insistence” on the blockade measures which the Council had “vigorously denounced.” Egypt upheld its contention that it could “wage unilateral war” four years after the hostilities had ceased.

The contentions Israel had presented in 1951 and repeated a few days ago, he said, had been substantially upheld by the Security Council. The Council had rejected the concept of unilateral belligerent rights, he said, and three times it had rejected the concept that the armistice agreement was compatible with the active exercise of belligerent rights.

The Security Council had already determined that the armistice agreement was incompatible with the rights of visit and search, he continued. The representative of Egypt today had made contentions identical to those made by his predecessor, now the Foreign Minister, in 1951.

The interpretation of the armistice agreement had been made not by Israel but “authentically and authoritatively” by the Security Council, he stated. In his view, the Constantinople Convention of 1888 – even if it were compatible with Egypt’s contentions, which it was not – would not b###p Egypt’s case as the Charter prescribed supremacy of its provisions over treaties. The basis of the present debate, he said, was formed by the Charter of the United Nations, the armistice agreement and the Security Council resolution of September 1, 1951.

At the request of the Israeli delegation, the Egyptian Government decree of 1950 and the amendments to it dealing with restrictions on shipping in the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba were circulated today to members of the UN Security Council.

In a letter to the President of the Council, Ambassador Abba Eban said “compliance with the Security Council’s resolution of September 1, 1951 would of course require the complete and unconditional revocation both of the (Egyptian) decree of February 7, 1950 and of the amendments published on November 24, 1953.”

The original decree contained 17 articles. Article 2 called upon customs officials to assure that cargoes did not include munitions, war materials or other goods considered to be contraband of war and destined “for institutions or persons residing in Palestine territory under the control of the Zionists.” The amendments put “foodstuffs and all other commodities which are likely to strengthen the war potential of the Zionists in any way whatever on the contraband list.” The amendments also implicitly include the Gulf of Aqaba in the blockade.