ISRAEL BORDER VIOLENCE

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27639, 21 April 1955, Page 14

ISRAEL BORDER VIOLENCE

Debate In Security Council (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 10 p.m.) NEW YORK, April 19. The United Nations Security Cou», cil adjourned tonight without taking any action on Israel’s complaint of “repeated attacks” by Egypt across the border in the Gaza Strip. The President, Mr Arkady Sobolev (Soviet Union), said it was the consensus of the members of the council that no further action was required. He said that the facts brought to the council’s attention and any possible measures designed to prevent incidents along the demarcation line were fully covered by the resolutions approved by the council last month. The last of these called on Egypt and Israel to co-operate with Major-General E. L. M. Burns, chief of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in Palestine, in working out measures to reduce the tension. *.

Israel’s delegate, Mr Abba Eban, earlier had appealed to the councilto condemn the incessant mining of Israeli roads, which he said General Burns had described as the major cause of increased tension. He also asked the council to condemn assaults on. Israeli patrols arid incursions into Israeli territory. “How, when a clear preponderance of Egyptian responsibility is proved for assaults extending over a month and resulting in increased tension, can the security Council refrain from expressing itself on that responsibility?” Mr Eban asked. “If the council is against the mining of Israel roads, against attacks on Israel patrols such as that at Nahal O?, against incursions such as at Patish, then surely it should express that view in clear and incisive terms.”

Israel, which was condemned by the council on March 29 for the Zaza incident in which 38 Egyptians and eight Israelis were killed, complained to the council of “repeated attaqks” across the border and specifically mentioned: (1) An armed assault on a wedding party at Patish on March 2.

(2) “Repeated attacks” by mining and gunfire on Israeli hrmy patrols. (3) An attack on the village of Nahal Oz on April 3.

Mr Omar Loufti (Egypt), referring to the question of mine-laying along Israeli roads, said that it had not at all been proved that these actions were carried out by Egyptian military personnel or persons under Egyptian command.

Mr Loutfi said that Egypt had accepted the establishment of joint border patrols and had suggested that they be established as soon as possible in order to prevent further incidents.

Representatives of the United States, France, Britain, Belgium, New Zealand and the Soviet Union spoke in today’s debate and all took the line that no further council action was required in view of the March 30 resolution calling on the partied to co-operate with General Burns. N.Z. Delegate’s Speech Mr A. R. Perry (New Zealand) said that at the moment the council could do no more than emphasise the need for Israel and Egypt to use the utmost restraint and to co-operate sincerely with General Burns. “The speed with which a solution is reached will depend entirely on the sense of urgency which Egypt and Israel bring to their talks with General Burns,” he said. "Neither can afford a further delay.” Mr Perry said that the most recejit incidents and the toll of human life regrettably accompanying them could not be regarded lightly. . “They indicate,” he added, “that border tension between Egypt and Israel remains at a dangerous pitch,” The almost continous series of incidents in recent weeks were no doubt largely the result, as General Burns suggested, of emotional tension after the Gaza incident.

If Israel had intended the attack on Gaza as a deterrent' it had proved inhe said - But this d * d not mean that the actions for which Egypt was responsible were in any way justified. Mr Perry said: “Unless this state of affairs is quickly corrected, a further deterioration in an already serious situation is only too likely. .. .A necessary first step is correcting this situation, in our view, is for both parties promptly to carry out General Bumss recommendation that local commanders be made responsible for acts^” 11^ hostile and provocative

As for Israel’s request for further u 1 act \°?’ New Zealand believed that it would not be useful or appropriate for the council to attempt to. u b^L ance x ? heet of the incidents. It should not be used as a kind of review authority to pass on all decisions of the Mixed Armistice Commission. *