TERRORISM: Vindication for the Israelis

• Share

Though the action was scarcely as spectacular as the daring rescue of 101 skyjack hostages from Uganda's Entebbe Airport, Israel last week won another round on hostile territory against air terrorism. After four days of emotional debate in the United Nations Security Council, the Israelis beat off the attempt by African states to have the Entebbe operation condemned as a "flagrant violation" of Uganda's sovereignty. Beamed a delighted Chaim Herzog. Jerusalem's U.N. ambassador: "Israel has not been condemned and has thereby been vindicated."

The African argument was simply that Israel's assault at Entebbe posed a threat to every nation's sovereignty. Herzog's rebuttal was slightly more complicated: that Israel had a right, long recognized in international law, to protect the safety of its citizens, and that Uganda's Idi Amin Dada had compromised his own country's rights by aiding the skyjackers.

Herzog's argument had forceful support from U.S. Ambassador William Scranton. While acknowledging that the rescue "necessarily involved a temporary breach" of Uganda's territorial integrity, Scranton maintained that Israel had "good reason" to act with limited force to protect its citizens from an "imminent threat of injury or death in a situation where the state in whose territory they are located is either unwilling or unable to protect them." The rescue, Scranton added, "electrified millions everywhere, and—I confess—I was one of them." The British were nearly as emphatic in their backing of Israel, although the French—apparently concerned about the fate of the $19 million Air France jet that was still sitting at Entebbe—were characteristically ambivalent and careful not to insult Amin.

But the Africans' case was so flaccid that it could not be sustained, even given the strong bias against Israel and the industrial countries that prevails in almost all U.N. bodies. When Panama said it would abstain from the balloting (probably because it did not want to anger Washington, with which it is negotiating the future status of the Panama Canal), it became apparent that the resolution would fall one short of the nine votes required for passage in the 15-member Council. The U.S. and Britain and possibly Italy, Japan and Sweden would have opposed it; France would also have abstained; China, the U.S.S.R., Pakistan, Libya, Tanzania, Benin (formerly Dahomey), Rumania and Guyana would have voted for it. Rather than suffer certain defeat, the Africans did not demand a vote on their resolution. The U.S. and Britain, however, insisted on a vote on their broad counterproposal condemning all terrorism. It was defeated handily, receiving backing from only Italy, Sweden, Japan and France in addition to its two sponsors. Panama again abstained and this time was joined by Rumania, while the rest of the Council refused to participate. The session thus adjourned without adopting anything.