lzhak D. Untie!

Richard Clements, Tom Baistow Francis Noel-Baker, MP

Africa D. T. M. Williams

Lord Raglan T. R. M. Creighton Philip R. Meldon Irving Wardle, Sidney Harrison Torrid zones Left-over Left Preludin With Mae Through Front Caesar to Art

Hunger

0Fi1ad Graves

of Academe bur t R:'"ee, has nothing whatever to do with the Jordan SIR

nilver Project. In the light of Mr. Childers's corn- :reticles" otnhe light of Mr. Erskine Childers's previous 1:for necessary 'in the light of Israel's plans'

y,.en examination of the map will show that the

then S " is worth while recalling that the scheme for irre. -iversion of the Jordan waters for purposes of in itaticm, principally in the Kingdom of Jordan and siic,rnd Zones' in your issue of February 26 goes it Tewfiq episode: Mr. Childers explains that 7,,1114.0s expect detachment from him. However, his

bentr° f o the demilitarised zones on the Syrian

0 diversion of the Jordan waters for hereto secure !trot IsulartY far in its distortion of facts and motives. cl area, which lies to the east of the Sea of including that in which Tewfiq is located. ZONES the Israel-Arab problem, one 'does not a was worked out in detail in the course of lgiejles of visits to the Middle East in 1954 and re," by Ambassador Eric Johnston as the personal of his of President Eisenhower. As a result toe„1,s discussions with the governments and govern- te"Lal experts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and 11°Y,,t, un the one hand, and of Israel, oh the other, all 'ecured an agreement on a technical level between allothe, Parties concerned on what should be the Ah,-,cation of the waters. As those who have read it —uassador Johnston's published articles will know, Whwi as above all the 'dead hand' of the Syrian veto projcel, destroyed the possibility of implementing a setti `` Which, inter alio, would have meant the Jo calent of up to 200,000 Arab refugees in the rdan Valley. zes As to the general question of the demilitarised the the position is different on the Syrian and detail at borders. I cannot in a short note go into ter,4,4', but it is sufficient to recall that Israel en- anis' into the Armistice Agreement with the Syrians of only after the latter agreed to withdraw to their side of the international boundary—that is to say, east paltbe areas occupied by them in their invasion of paseitstine in 1948. Whatever the United Nations _,thc2n Within the zones, one. thing is,crystal clear ate Syrian forces had no right to cross over the rnational frontier and to enter the zone. The oratel action at Tcwfiq was directed ate the eviction dYrian forces which had' done just that; and the when (i,verY in Tewfiq of Syrian army uniforms and whr,tau-supplied military equipment (pictures of it„ en were at the time published in the press) merely confirmed the fact of the incursion. hew?.'er Childers says that the zones on the Syrian ,c were to be supervised by the Mixed `tuistie Commission. In fact, as a reading of the UArmistice Agreement will show, the demilitarised n. es never did come under the jurisdiction of the tZed Armistice Commission, but only of the Chairman of the Commission. 3

Perhaps the most amazing element of Mr. Childers's article is his attempt to justify Nasser's acts of piracy in the Suez Canal and flouting of international law and UN Security Council resolu- tions, on the ground apparently that Israel is not 'a normally established State with a normal history.' It is true, of course, that the Jewish people have had a most extraordinary history, and their reunion with their land after 2,000 years of suffering and dispersion marks a triumph of spirit and faith. It is also true that while most modern nations came into existence as a result of an invasion, a revolt, an insurrection or some other kind of inspired illegality which has been ratified by the course of history, Israel is the first nation in recorded history to have been summoned to membership in the international com- munity by a majority vote of the United Nations. Surely, the legality thus attending Israel's resurgence to national sovereignty can hardly serve as an excuse for the lawlessness of the United Arab Republic?

Having disposed of Israel's claims to be treated on a par with any other nation, Mr. Childers then de- velops the theory—in the circumstances an extra- ordinary sour de force—that it is not President Nasser but really Mr. Ben-Gurion who, for ulterior purposes of his own, brought about the aggravation in the Suez blockade. This is special pleading indeed : 'Periodically Mr. Ben-Gurion and his colleagues wish to maintain Western antagonism towards Nasser,' says Mr. Childers. Ergo, the voyage last year of the Inge Toft was highly publicised and it was this which was responsible for all the trouble. The facts are as follows. The Egyptian Government had for years refused passage to Israel flag vessels through the Canal—a 1951 ruling of the Security Council notwithstanding. In addition, so-called 'strategic' cargoes—notably oil and military supplies—appear- ing on an Egyptian contraband list were also banned. But other cargoes from or to Israel, if shipped through the Canal on non-Israel flag vessels, were ,tot interfered with.

In March, 1959, however, President Nasser em- barked on a major extension of his blockade policy. A Liberian ship, the Captain Manoles, and a few weeks later a German vessel, the Lealott, were forced at Port Said to unload their cargoes of Israel potash, cement and fruit juices bound for ports in the Far East. The cargoes were then confiscated and sold by the Egyptian authorities. This gross aggravation of an already illegal "blockade was- naturally a matter of considerable international in- terest and concern. And by the time a third vessel, the Danish Inge Toft, sought passage through the Canal the general press was fully alert to its impli- cations. The detention of this ship, which was held in Port Said from May 21, 1959, until the middle of February, 1960, when the Danish captain was obliged to unload his cargo, inevitably ,became cause celebre.

The •reasons which motivated President. Nasser in this extension of the blockade are a matter _for speculation. Probably, as with so much of his Israel policy, it was a function of his internal Arab policy. At a time when his star had declined greatly he was seeking once more to project himself as the defender of Arab rights. But Mr. Childers's description of Mr. Ben-Gurion's sinister part in these developments is, to put it bluntly, sheer rubbish—Yours faithfully,

1ZHAK D. UNNA

First Secretary (Press).

E mha.so of Israel, 2 Palace Green, W8