Torrid Zones Erskine B. Childers Classical Education Robert Blake. Rodney

Stebbing,

A. E. Gunther. Sixten Ringbonr

Algerian Refugees H. Shaw Left-over Left Silvan Jones Nola F. G. Hedger Wallace Underdog Confessions Philip Toynbee Craves of Academe Graham Trencher, M. C. Shirley,

Frank Howes Critical Quarterly Rhyming Slang JnYce's Letters

Unnatural Childbirth Professor John F. Danby Richard Ellinann Monica Furlong Cyril Ray

TORRID ZONES Unna, the. Israeli First Secretary, has done his diplomatic duty and has added a fair measure of abuse ('distortion . . . amazing . . . special Pleading . . . sheer rubbish') in his letter about my article. I hope we can avoid a long debate, because inevitably we are on different factual wavelengths. 1. Mr. Unna claims that the Tawafiq area (the dYnamited Arab village in the Israel-Syria demili- tarised area) 'has nothing whatever to do with the Jordan River project.' For brevity. I quote only from UN Truce Chief General Burns, reporting on January I I, 1955, on a series of incidents in this zone including, specifically, Tawafiq. He suggested an ad- Ministrative division to ease tension, but noted that Such provisional division of the zone is obvi- ously related to and probably dependent upon an agreement for the division of the Jordan waters in this area. (UN Document S/3343)

2. Mr. Unna then unfolds the Johnston Plan to divide Jordan waters, implying that I suppressed the facts about it. I referred to such' plans, and expressly wrote that, in her intended unilateral diversion of the Waters. Israel promises 'not to use more than she Would have been allocated under these joint schemes.'

3. Mr. Unna totally evades the issue of Israel's claim to sovereignty over these demilitarised zones (`Whatever the UN position within the zones'). He saYs that the only reason Israeli forces blew up the village was in order to evict alleged Syrian forces ( discovery in Tewafiq of Syrian army uniforms and Russian-supplied military equipment,' et cetera). I Prefer the objective, neutral UN Observers findings.

quote them again. Tawafiq, they stated, `was not a fortified position.' The Mixed Armistice Commission, with the Israeli delegate refusing even to attend, condemned Israel for 'a flagrant violation' and for `destruction contrary to elementary humanitarian principles.'

Why, if the facts were as Mr. Unna suggests, and coati/ be proven as he suggests, did Israel refuse to attend this inquiry? This is not the only occasion.

I quote from a UN Security Council resolution of May 18, 1951 : It is inconsistent with the objectives and intent of the Armistice Agreement . . . to refuse to participate in meetings of the Mixed Armistice Commission. (UN S/2157)

The Security Council then called on the parties `to be represented at all meetings called by the Chairman of the Commission.' Israel refused (S/2389 for 1951), Went on refusing (S/3343 up to early 1955) and was still refusing to comply with this Security Council resolution in May, 1956 (S/3596). She is now doing 80 again.

4. Mr. Unna also evades all reference to Israel's military occupation of the El Auja demilitarised zone on the Egyptian frontier. He merely writes, 'the posi- tion is different.' The position is that, having forcibly seized El Auja in September, 1955, Israel is still in defiance of the Armistice and UN agreement regard- ing non-sovereignty (Art. V, para. 1, endorsed by the Security Council on May 18. 1951). and of repeated demands by the UN to withdraw.

5. Mr. Unna describes as 'amazing' my 'attempt to justify Nasser's acts of piracy in the Suez Canal and flouting of international law and UN Security Coun- cil resolutions.' Your readers can judge for them- selves whether, against the facts, I was trying to `justify' or to set out for once both sides of the dispute--which I can appreciate Mr. Unna disliking. But to examine Mr. Unna's own words: first, 'flout- ing of international law.' But Mr. Unna has not a single word to say why, over ten years, Israel has never taken this Canal dispute to international law— to the World Court at The Hague. So far as 1 know, President Nasser does not control the World Court. Second, 'flouting of UN Security Council' resolu- tions': Mr. Unna cannot accuse me .of suppressing the fact that the Council condemned the Egyptian blockade in 1951; 1 said so in my article. But how strong can Israel's case really be in view of the whole catalogue of UN Security Council resolutions she herself defies?

6. Mr. Unna contrasts UAR 'lawlessness' with the 'legality' of Israel, which he defines as her `member- ship of the international community by a majority vote of the United Nations.' He is referring to the UN General Assembly's admission of Israel to mem- bership, and 1 should like very briefly to examine his Government's respect for that specific majority vote. The resolution (GA 273) explicitly bound Israel to the Assembly's (Partition) Resolution of November 29, 1947. It was a conditional admission, clearly subject to the UN's earlier resolutions on Palestine. Yet on November 15, 1955, Mr. Ben-Gurion peremptorily declared—without any permission from the UN— that 'all UN resolutions on Palestine are null and void' (Israel Digest 46). I suppose that, since the UN General Assembly did not then at once condemn Israel for repudiating the very terms of her UN membership, Mr. Unna is entitled to omit this extra- ordinary conduct from his recitation. But he will forgive me if I have to suggest that it is a bit hard to find UN 'legality' for Israel in a majority vote which she so freely spurns.

In fact, it is hard to know what aspect of the UN Mr. Unna can invoke. Not the Security Council : Israel is in standing defiance of it. Not the World Court : Israel refuses to go to it. Not the Armistices: Israel repudiated one in 1956 (Sinai), is in violation of others, has repeatedly obstructed, even physically detained, the UN Truce officers, and has for three years defied the General Assembly resolution (1125/XII) to station UNEF on the Israeli as well as the Egyptian side of the line. Is all this UN legally?

7. Finally, Mr. Unna brands as 'sheer rubbish' my analysis of Mr. Ben-Gurion's exacerbations of the Canal issue and efforts to maintain Western antagon- ism towards Nasser. He protests far too much. I trust he has also castigated many other journals, including the Zionist Jewish Observer (its report from Tel-Aviv on February 12) for similar 'rubbish.'—Yours faith- fully,

Ennismore Gardens, SW7