Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-02-10
IS AGGRESSION INVOLVED
By SIMON TUCKER

The Israeli invasion and occupa-
ton of Egypt is proving much
harder nut for the United Nations
to crack than the termination OF
the British French invasion. World
and u. N opinion seems consider.
ably more uncertain about con-
demning Israel for. its continuing
refusal to Withdraw from Egypt
than it was in dealing with Britain
and France.
Implicit behind this uncertainty
IS a basic question of international
law and justice: Was Israel guilty
of illegal action under International
law in attacking Egypt, or was its
action justified and proper to vim
dictate its rights?
If its invasion of Egypt was q
Just and legal act under inter-
national law. it would be entitled
to carry it through to fruition. TO
take the action that would protect
IL from further violation OF its
rights. At the least, 1t would be
entitled to guarantees that the
violations of its rights would be
eliminated as a condition OF ending
its action against Egypt.
Aggression Guideposts
A useful document for evaluating
the Israeli invasion under inter-
national law is a report put out
in October, 1856, by the U. N.
Special Committee on the Question
of Defining Aggression. containing
definitions Of aggression proposed
by countries of the world. Three
elements common to the modern
concepts of aggression are reflected
here:
Q The kinds Of acts which might
constitute aggression are not only
attacks on the territory of another
state, but also attacks on the YES
sells, shipping, aircraft. people. SOW
ereignty or political independence
Of another state as well as active
or passive support Of armed bands
invading another state.
. An attack on another state is
justified, and is not aggression
when the other state has first been
the aggressor.
. Short of self defense or respond
ing 10 aggression first committed by
another state, mo POLITICAL mill
tary, economic or other considera-
tons may serve as an excuse or
justification for" attacking another
country. Among the things specifl-
cally listed as not justifying an
attack are the violation Of the
material or moral rights or inter-
ests of the attacking state, frontier
incidents not themselves consti-
tuting aggression, and violations
Of international treaties.
Whether the Israeli invasion of
Egypt was justified or was agrees
sion depends on whether Egypt
itself was guilty of prior aggression
against Israel. In particular Israeli
occupation Of Egypt is directed
at preventing further Egyptian vio-
lations of its rights in the GAIA
and Aqaba Gulf areas: and 1t is
around these two areas that the
question of prior Egyptian agrees
sion against Israel centers in the
current u. N. controversy.
In connection with the GAIA
strip area. Egypt is alleged to have
used this as base for sending
"fedayeen" on commando type
raids into Israel. One defense that
Egypt asserts 10 this charge is
that the "fedayeen" are private
parties not organized by the Egyp-
tan government and hence Egypt
is not responsible for their activi-
ties. But even assuming. in line with
the definitions Of aggression mem
toned above. that Egypt Is respon-
sible for the 'fedayeen" raids, there
Is still q big question as TO whether
these constitute aggression.
Stote Of Hostility
legally speaking. the relation
ship between Egypt and Israel Is
that Egypt is in state Of war
or,fmore properly put, a state \pf
hostility with Israel. This condi-