Evening star., 1956-08-27
Egypt's S Legal Grounds

point to the consistent bias Of
your columnist, Miss Dorothy
Thompson, against Israel.
Discussing the Suez Canal
conference recently, Miss
Thompson says. Egypt can in
woke legal grounds for holding
up Israeli ships or Israel-bound
ships carrying strategic mate
rials :"
Miss Thompson goes on to
define these legal grounds" as
resting on Egypt's contention
OF "belligerent rights" against
Israel.
Miss Thompson, however,
concealS from her readers the
fact that Egypt's legal
grounds" have been decisively
rejected by the competent in
ternational forum. In its res
olution of September /, 1851,
the Security Council of the
United Nations examined
Egypt's contentious and is
sued the following decision:
(a) The restrictions applied
by Egypt against shipping to
Israel are inconsistent with
the objectives of a peaceful
settlement between the parties
=. set forth in the armistice
agreement"
(b) These restrictions are
IAN abuse of the exercise of
the right of visit, search and
seizure"
(c) This practice cannot in
the prevailing circumstances
be justified on the grounds
that it is necessary for self
defense"
I'D Under the armistice
agreement, Egypt cannot
reasonably assert that it is an
active belligerent or . re-
quires to exercise the right Of
visit, search and seizure for
any legitimate purpose of self
defense"
(e) These restrictions "rep-
resent unjuStified interfer-
ence with the rights of other
nations +. to navigate the
seas and trade freely with one
another. including the state of
Israel"
ID Accordingly the Security
Council of the United Nations
called upon Egypt Ito termi-
nate the restrictions on the
passage of international COM
mercial shipping and goods
through the Suez Canal wher-
ever bound and to cease all
interference with such ship
ping beyond that essential to
the safety of shipping in the
canal itself and to the observ-
ance Of the International Con-
ventions."
In october 1854, Ambassa-
dor Henry Cabot Lodge, speak
ing for the United States,
summed up the American
viewpoint in these words:
THUS we cannot fail to
state our view that Egyptian
restrictions on ships passing
through the Suez Canal,
whether bound to or from
Israel. or whether flying the
Israel or some other flag, are
inconsistent with the spirit and
intent Of the Egyptian-Israeli
General Armistice Agreement,
contrary to the Security Coun-
Gil resolution Of September
1851 (S/2322), and a retrogres-
sion from the stated objectives
to which both sides committed
themselves in signing the ar
mistice agreement. We cannot
fail to state. therefore, that VIC
look to Egypt to give effect to
these decisions and agree
ments."
Miss Thompson also sup
presses the fact that other
signatories Of the Constanti-
nople Convention Of 1888 have
denied Egypt the right to dis
criminate against any nation
or flag in its freedom to use
the Suez Canal. The conven-
ton states that measures
taken by the littoral state to
ensure its self-defense shall
not interfere with the free use
Of the canal. (which shall al
ways be free 'and open. in
time Of war as in time Of peace
to every vessel Of commerce or
Of war without distinction Of
flag
/ wonder If Miss Thompson
can tell us of any legal
ground" for discrimination
against Israel shipping which
has not been examined and
rejected by the appropriate in
ternational forum.
II. Y. Orgei.
Information Attache, En-
baSsy Of Israel.