E Items-In-Peace-Keeping Operations - Middle East - Envelope No
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UN Secretariat Item Scan - Barcode - Record Title Page 19 Date 22/05/2006 Time 4:37:27 PM S-0865-0001-18-00001 Expanded Number S-0865-0001 -18-00001 ™e Items-in-Peace-keeping operations - Middle East - envelope No. 5 Israel/Jordan Date Created 01/07/1965 Record Type Archival Item Container s-0865-0001: Peace-Keeping Operations Files of the Secretary-General: U Thant - Middle East Print Name of Person Submit Image Signature of Person Submit UNITED NATIONS XT ^*~~rzr*^ ». Distr. SECURITY W&Rii COUNCIL W^^W i July 1965 ORIGINAL; ENGLISH LETTER DATED 1 JULY 1965 FROM THE PERMAHEHT REPRESENTATIVE OF ISRAEL ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL I have the honour, upon instructions from my Government, to recall the shooting incident in Jerusalem on Jl May 1965- My letter of 1 June 1965 (s/6j597) described the shooting by Jordanian army posts at civilians and civilian buildings across the border in Israel territory, resulting in the killing of two civilians and the wounding of four others -- five of the six casualties being women. At an emergency meeting of the Israel-Jordan Mixed. Armistice Commission on 28 June, the Israel complaint was fully upheld. The Commission found that rifle and machine-gun fire had been directed towards Israel from four Jordan military positions located on the Old City Wall, and that this fire resulted in the killing and wounding of the six civilians listed in my abovementioned Note, and also in damage to property. The MAC noted that "the perpetrators of the shooting were regular Jordanian military personnel on official duty"j decided that the shooting was a gross violation of the General Armistice Agreement; condemned Jordan for the shooting; and called upon the Jordanian authorities to take all necessary steps to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in the future, and to ensure that disciplined military personnel were deployed along the armistice Demarcation line so as to prevent similar acts in the future. (A copy of the MAC decision is attached to this letter.) In the light of this decision, the letter dated 4 June 1965 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan concerning .this incident (s/6415), makes strange reading. The Jordanian representative replied to my letter of 1 June 1965 in a tone of almost hysterical abuse. His communication was crammed with such language as "misrepresentations and false allegations", "shameful distortion of truth", "a usual manner by which the Israeli representative tries to cover up the criminal deeds committed by his Government", "criminal provocation", "lacks the honesty and 65-16402 S/6U92 English Page 2 decency of normal communications addressed to the President of the Security Council", "absurd and untruthful", "attempt to hide the truth and gain undeserved sympathy", "flagrant and outrageous violation", "vicious Israel designs", "misreported", "lies", and so forth. • The Jordanian.letter also set out what it termed "the true facts of the ' '• " ' • incident". However, these "true facts" did-not'convince the Mixed Armistice Commission when it considered the Jordanian complaint at its emergency meeting on 22 June. In particular, the MAG did not endorse the paragraphs in a Jordanian draft resolution which alleged that there had been firing from the Israel side, that there had been an exchange of fire,.: that Israelis had crossed into the no-man's-land, or that Israelis had set fire to dry grass in the no-man's-land. In other -words, the MAC did not uphold any Jordanian allegation imputing to Israel any blame or responsibility for the incident. Another aspect of the Jordanian letter of ^ June is worth noting. Without waiting for the investigation even of Jordan's own complaint, the letter claimed that the Jordanian story was confirmed by United Nations Observers. It states: "The United Nations Observers found Israelis fired shots on the walls of Jerusalem and on Jordanian army defense posts", and in the next paragraph adds: "All these facts are substantiated by independent witnesses among whom is Mr. Kampmann, a United Nations Observer,- who was in the Jordanian sector of Jerusalem and recorded exactly -what had happened and the time it happened." The actual report made by the UMO in question, Major J. Kampmann, to the Chairman of the MAC, on the day of the shooting (and attached to the official investigation report),, reads as follows: . • "Subject: Shooting incident in Jerusalem area. On 31 May 1965 at 1^25 It, while sitting in my jeep outside Lamascus gate facing southwest, I heard- a burst of heavy KG from the area between the old city wall and Notre Dame, in front of me. Shortly after there was another burst- from the same area and at the same time I saw smoke i'rom a grass fire in front of Notre Dame. Approximately 5 minutes later I heard another burst and, shortly after, a single shot. Then I drove via Kandelbaum Gate to Government House. When I passed in 'the vicinity of the Corner of St. Paul's road and Baldwin-Street I saw a crowd.of people and police surrounding a girl lying on the pavement. I proceeded to Govern rut House. Left 10 minates later- to go back to the Old City. When I was near the spot where I had seen the girl lying I found the street so crowded with people and cars that I turned and drove to Mandelbaum Gate along another street. On my way I heard and saw the ambulance with sirens and full speed heading vest along the Tel Aviv road. The shooting was reported by Motorola." English Page 5 It is clear, therefore, that Major Kampmann did not at all substantiate the Jordanian version. He heard shooting, but did not allege that it came from the Israel side - nor did any other United Nations Observers. The Jordanian letter falsely attributes such evidence to them. In explaining his voting, the United Nations Chairman expressly stated that there was no conclusive evidence to support the allegations of Israel firing or of an exchange of fire. Incidentally, this is not the only recent case of the Permanent Representative of Jordan presenting United Nations evidence or findings in a misleading manner. Another example is contained in the letter from the Permanent Representative of Jordan'to the President of the Security Council on 16 June 1965 (Document S/6W-6). That letter purports to transmit to the Security Council the decision taken by the Mixed Armistice Commission on the Israel action on 27 May, against the base in Jordan from which sabotage raids had been carried out into Israel territory. (These raids are detailed in the Israel letters of 1 March and 2J May, documents S/6208 and 8/6387.) In "transmitting" the MAC decision, the Jordanian letter conveniently omits one key paragraph, which reads; "Notes that this action was taken after a series of demolition activities took place against civilians in Israel and their property." Another portion of the same MAC decision is falsified in the Jordanian letter of 16 June, which asserts that, "The Mixed Armistice Commission (contrary to the allegations appearing in the Israeli letter dated 27 May 1965 (8/6387)),found that there was no evidence that Jordan had any part in sabotage operations against Ramat Hakovesh." (My underlining) The relevant portion of the MAC decision of 27 May actually notes that - "Concerning the abovementioned demolition activities in Israel, the Chairman of this MAC declared in one instance, 'Ramat Hakovesh', that there was no evidence that the Jordanian authorities had any part in such sabotage operation." (My underlining") The reason for substituting "Jordan" for "Jordanian authorities" becomes clear when one refers to the actual decision taken by the MAC regarding the Ramat Hakovesh incident. That decision established that the perpetrators of the outrage had entered Israel from Jordan and returned to Jordan, and that "this act is a flagrant violation by Jordan of article IV (3) of the General Armistice Agreement," The Commission further stated that it "views with grave concern the recurrence of S/6U92 • English Page it- incidents of this nature which disturb normal life in Israel and constitute a threat to peace and tranquillity"-. While., therefore, there was a decision against Jordan, it was not alleged even by Israel that the "Jordanian authorities" as such had any part in the sabotage operation;. ,In the form in which this paragraph is "transmitted" to the Security Council, in the letter frora the Permanent Representative of Jordan, the. wording is altered so that it is made to appear as if "Jordan" was not involved in the incident, which is the opposite of the MAC decision. - . It is permissible for either party to put forward its version of a£ incident,- which may cr may not "be borne-out afterwards by United nations investigation, or upheld by the decision of the-Mixed Armistice. Commission. It is not, however, permissible to misrepresent the text of MAC decisions, or the evidence of United Nations Military Observers. This is particularly inappropriate when the offender is actxially a member of the Security Council. I have the honour to request that this letter be circulated to the members of the Security Council, as a Council document. (Signed) Michael COMAY Permanent Representative 8/61*92 English Page 5 KTK - ISRAEL MAC DECISION ON ISEAEL COMPLAINT Ho. The HJK - I me, having considered Israel Complaint No. L.i(85j, the United Nations investigation report on the complaint, and the discussion thereon, Finds that 1. On 31 May 1965 at or about lij-25 hrs, fire was directed toward Israel from Jordan military positions located on the Old City Wall at the following MRS.