JEWS ACCUSED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26783, 28 May 1948, Page 5

JEWS ACCUSED

AVOIDANCE OF ORIGINAL TRUCE TERMS ARAB ACTION DEFENDED N.Z.P.A.—Copyright Rec. 11 p.m. NEW YORK, May 26. A message on the Arab nation’s terms for settlement, which was read to the Security Council this evening, accused the Jews of doing their best to avoid the implications of the Security Council truce resolution passed on April 17 and accepted by all the Arab States by creating a fait accompli (Israel State), which, would change the situation to the detriment of the Palestine Arabs. , . When the British mandate ended tne Jews ignored the truce then in force and attacked Jerusalem. “In that situation and in view of the continued activities, the Arab States had no alternative but to take coordinated action to preserve the Palestine Arabs, including the repatriation of 250,000 displaced Arabs and to restore peace and order.” The Note also stated: “Had the Arabs been convinced that a ceasefire would lead to no other attacks, ■ the situation would have been different. “ The important questions to be 'asked are: First, is the ceasefire likely to stop the flow of Jewish immigrants to Palestine? Secondly, will it stop the importation of arms? Thirdly, is it likely to stop terrorist violence and guarantee the Arab population’s safety? ” The Arab League then states that its Political Committee was ready to study in the next 48 hours any suggestions which the Security Council might make for the solution of the Palestine problem. Mr Aubre Eban, Jewish Agency dele-, gate, said the Arab Note constituted “a flat, defiant rejection. If the Arab States want peace with Israel they can have it, but if they want war they can have that, too. Israel does not shrink from its own defence.” The council adjourned until to-mor-row. Observers point out that the Arab League Note was most carefully worded and did not specifically accent or reject the cease-fire order. The remarks of individual Arab delegates, however, were considerably sharper with their insistence that the Arabs could not stop fighting as long as t Israel claimed existence as a nation. Mahmoud Bey Fawzi told the Security Council that Egypt's reply to the cease-fire request would be substantially the same as that of Saudi-Arabia and other Arab States. Before the Arab League’s decision was announced, it was reported at Lake Success that if the Arabs rejected the request, a demand would be made by “ certain big Powers ” for a worldwide diplomatic break with the Arab nations. France is understood to be particularly anxious for strong action against the countries refusing to heed the cegse-fire appeal, and Russia and the United States have already said that‘they favoured forceful action. The decision against the cease-fire was received by all the Arab delegates at Lake Success just before the dead line. The instructions from the various Governments were that they could not accept the cease-fire unconditionally. . „ . .. ‘ A spokesman in Cairo said the Egyptian- Government rejected the order because “Arab armies were fighting Zionist gangs whose word cannot be depended on. Acceptance would enable the gangs to increase armaments and bring in more immigrants, and because it is not normal in international relations to treat regular . armies the same way as gangs mostly consisting of foreigners wishing to impose their wills on the original inhabitants.”