S/PV.949 Security Council

The United States GlJvernment regrets that a case involving a breach of the Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel Is again before the Security Council. This is the first time :10 two years we have had to deal with such a problem. At the same time, it is appropriate that the discussion has centred on the specifie issue brought before usby Jordan, and 1 am hopeful that we can continue to concentrate our attention on that specifie issue. 2. In our view, the rehearsal for a military parade conducted by Israel in Jerusalem on 17 March 1961 in preparation for the Independence Day p~rade of 20 April was contrary to the General Armistice Agreement. A violationoftheArmisticeAgreementinvolving only a holiday parade may or may not constitute a threat to peace as has been alleged. The degree to which such a violation of the Armistice Agreement might become a threat to -the peace depends primarily on the respective attitudes of the parties. In this connexion, 1 note that the representative of Israel has sought to reassure the Government of Jordan of the peaceful nature of its oelebration. 4. In the case before us one of the parties has lodged a complaint with the MixedArmistice Commi'ssion, and the Commission has decided that the episade did indeed constitute a violation of the general ArmisticeAgreement. If we do not act wisely now, we may be faced with a series of formaI complaints submitted by bath parties which will erode the Armistice Agreement and the will of the parties to carry it out. That would indeed constitute a threat to the peace. Such a situation can easily be avoided by adherence in the future not only to the substance, but to theformof the Armistice Agreement. 5. It is true that the Mixed Armistice Commission might have been able to handle this matter in another way, perhaps along the lines of the experience of the 1958 Israel military parade in Jerusalem, which we understand was held pursuant to arrangements worked out in the field by the Commission, but this has not happened. Instead, we have before us a specifie finding by the Mixed Armistice Commission made according to the proper procedures. We believe the authority of the truce supervision machinery on the spot should be upheld. 6. We realize the imperfections of the Armistice Agreement. We are aware that all parts ofthe Agreement are not fully implemented, and that others are occasionally violated. Nevertheless, we are convinced that the Armistice Agreement and the machinery to carry it out is an essential element ofpeace and stability. We support the Armistice Agreement fully. It is fundamental to the continuation of the present state of relative tranquillity in th~ area that bathparties ta the Armistice Agreement observe it in spirit and in letter. We sincerely hope that all concerned will take steps to ensure that the Agreement is not again violated. All parties should refrain from acts which might tend ta increase tension. Two wrongs do not make a right. Any retaliatory violations of t.he Armistice Agreement by either party,. particularly for violations that are not ill-intentioned could unnecessarily lead to serious circumstances. 7. Given the fragile nature 01 peace in the Middle East, bath Israel and Jordan have aparticularlyheavy responsibility for the exercise of patience and states- 9. Over the years this CowlCil has spent a considerable portion of its deliberations in endeavouring to assist the parties to the GeneralArmistice Agreements in maintaining tranquillity and stability inthe Palestine area. The purpose of the United states amendment is to put again on record the fact that compliance with the 3eneral Armistice Agreements is not a unilateral obligation. Neither party to anyof the GeneralArmistice Agreements can expect that the other party will fully honour the provisions of that agreement if it itself is not prepared to show good faith in compliance. 10. Sa long as the four GeneralArmistice Agreements are in effect and still govern the relations of the parties, this Council must, we submit, take every appropriate opportunity to demonstrate its continued determination to ensure theïr effectiveness. 11. Ml'. PADMORE (Liberia): My delegation would like to make several briefobservations about the situation before us at this stage of the discussion. This is being done with the hope that it may contribute, in a friendly and conciliatory fashion, toward an amicable solution of the situation before further elaboration of the matter tends to make it more difficult. 12. l am certain that nobody here is concerned with the question of whether a military parade, held on a national anniversary, constitutes a threat to world peace. These parades are being held often in several capitals and on various continents; theyare spectacles which ordinary human beings seem to enjoy. 13. What is important in this instance, howeveT, is that it is proposed to hold such a parade, involving a display of warlikè equipment, in a city whose status has been a matter of heated controversy and which is divided between two former belligerents who have signed an armistice agreement but not a treaty of peace. If thereisanyplaceintheworld where guns and tanks have no place, surely itisJerusalem. There has been an indication around this Council table that perhaps this question should not have been brought here at this time. But to my delegation, the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular, is indeed the instrument which should be called upon for a solution to such problems affecting world peace and security. The value of this type ofdiscussion is that it identifies problems in their incipient stage of development and provides an easy means for resolving them beforethe issues become completely crystallized and threaten the disruption of friendly relations. This, of course, requires a prevailing spirit of amity and fair play and with such a spirit, there has been great success in 14. The matter before us basically involves the sanctity of the General Armistice Agreement, whichis vital to maintaining international peace and securityin the Jerusalem area. As has been repeated by several representatives of the Council, the Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission didfind a specifie breach of the armistice agreement on 17 March and the Jordanian Government believes that a similar infraction is likely to take place on 20April, when Israel plans a military parade in J erusalem in celebrationof the anniversary of her independ ;nce. 15. Under such circumstances, the 8ecurity Council has an overall obligation ta support the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission in carrying out its responsibilities under the General Armistice Agreement. Therefore, my delegation believes that the Council must take note of the Commission's decision, adopted on 20 March, as circulated in document 8/4776, and provide appropriate supportforthatdecision. This involves supporting the Commission in calling upon the Israel authorities to refrain, in the future, from bringing into Jerusalem any equipment in excess of that allowed under the Armistice Agreement, especially so if such an act would be offensive to Jordan. If the Council fails to support the armistice machinery in this matter, it is evidentthat therewill be a deterioration in the effectiveness of the machinery which could jeopardize the maintenance of international peace and security in the area. 16. It has been further notedbymydelegationthat the Israel Government, in document S/4778, reiterates its fullest assurance of the peaceful nature and purposes of the anniversary parade on 20 April and its readiness to co-operate in appropriate measures designed to relieve Jordanian apprehensions. 17. My delegation will, therefore, support the resolution tabled by the United Arab Republic and Ceylon [8/4784], but considers it necessary to appeal to bath parties to assist the efforts of the Mixed Armistice Commission and, therefore, to calI upon bath parties to exercise aIl possible restraint and give full cooperation to ensure that the ArmisticeAgreetp.entwill be observed, thereby maintaining peace and security in that area of the world. My delegation is aware that there is no right way to do the wrong thing and will, therefore, support the amendment submitted by the United 8tates delegation [8/4785]. 18. Mr. RIFA'I (Jordan): At this stage of the debate, when a resolution has been drafted and anamendmeilt is being introduced, I feel called upon to make the following observations. 19. It was a source of gratification for the Jordan dele5ation to see that most of the memqers of this Council who have spoken since the very beginning of 20. In his intervention at the 948th meeting the representative of Israel described the Ceylon-United Arab Republic draft resolution as beingpartial and onesided. I cannot see how it could be two-sièled, since what has been discussed is a specific violation by Israel of the military provisions of the Armistice Agreement and a definite actwhich has been condemned by the Mixed Armistice Commission and which Israel has been called upon by that Commission not to repeat. What the 8ecurity Council also ia considering is a determination on the part of Israel to defy the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission and to proceed with its military concentration in Jerusalem in complete disregard of the strong views expressed in this Council against such a violation. To calI the draft resolution partial is to impute partiality to the United Nations Mixed Armistice Commission. a subsidiary organ of the 8ecurity Council, for in fact the draft resolution is no more than an endorsement of the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission. 21. In the course of the debate 1 abstained from follawing the line of the representative of Israel. who tried to evade the present case by raising certain matters that not only were irrelevant to the item under consideration but that were also untrue. I could have shown, for example, that the Israel aUegation that Jordan brought into Jerusalem heavy armament was baseless and that the Mixed Armistice Commission has no record or report of such an allegation. 1 also could have reviewed before the members 'of the Security Council the long record of Israel at the Mixed Armistice Commission bywhich it has been condemn~d so many times, and its record at the Security Council by which it has been censured and condemned several other times. But such a diversion in our discussion was totally unnecessary since we are considering one specific and concrete case. 22. Today I listened with particular attention to the statement of the representative of the United States in whicll he called the Israel concentration of heavy armament in Jerusalem a holiday parade and inwhich he, in a way, put Israel, which stands condemned in the present complaint. on an equal footingwithJordan, the complainant. Allow me to make the followingexplanation. 23. The situation in the Palestine area is governed by a General Armistice Agreement which is the only assurance against resumption ofhostilities between the parties to the conflict. The Armistice Agreement does not recognize any military or political gain; it does not prejudice any right, claim or position of the parties, and its provisions are dictated exclusivelybymilitary considerations. This is clearly stated in article II of the Agreement and is explained in aU other articles. Thus the military character of the Agreement is the foundation upon which the present quiet inthe Palestine 24. The Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission was quite correct when he caUed for an emergency meeting and spoke rightly when he said that the complaint of Jordan "referred ta the applicationofthe military provisions of the Armistice Agreement" •The conclusion we draw from this is that the violation of the military provisions of theAgreement <;l,an in no way be met with a compromise or conciliation, for indeed it is extremely dangerous to allow heavy armaments ta come within range ofthe line ofcease-fire, or rather of the line of fire. 25. This is why the Mixed Armistice Commission, after having resolved that the Israel rehearsal of 17 March was a breach of the Armistice Agreement, condemned the action and called upon Israel to take the strongest measures to prevent its recurrence. 26. 1 do not think thatwhatthe MixedArmistice Commission found justifiable to decide, the Security Council would hesitate to adopte Nor do 1 think that prevention of an Israel show of force could be viewed by some members around this table as being more difficult than the prevention of a renewal of armed hostilities in our area. ' 27. My delegation has come to this Council with a clear case and a definite request. We ask the Council in plain language to endorse the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission and to caU upon Israel to comply with it. If this request is considered by some members as a heavy obligation underwhichtheytry to shelter behind mild attitudes and moderate tones or under which they tend to widen the scope of their pronouncement to matter.s which have no relevance to the Jordanian complaint, then they will be giving a green light to Israel to proceed with its violations and acts cf aggression. Such a policy will have the following repercussions. First, it will impair the authority of the Mixed Armistice Commission. Secondly, it will turn the General Armistice Agreement into a dead letter. Thirdly, it will entitle the parties to the Armistice Agreement to take the law in their hands. Fourthly, it will convert the Holy City into a place of heavy military concentrations. Fifthly, it will haveits political repercussions in our area. 28. My delegation cannot, therefore, accept any amendment which might place the draft resolution of Ceylon and the United Arab Republic out ofits context and divert attention ta other irrelevant issues. My delegation hopes that the Council will take the right decision. If, however, our hopes are disappointed, let it then go on record in the United Nations that the Security Council did not live up ta its obligations.

1 calI on the representative of the United States who wishes ta speak in the exercise of his right of reply. "My Government has tabled the draft amendment [S/4785] before you as an addition to the draft resolution co-sponsored by Ceylon and the United Arab Republic [S/4784]. We are inaccordwiththeposition taken by the proposed draft resolution •.• ". 31. 1 do want my colleague to understand that the United States Government supports the draft resolution proposed by Ceylon and the United Arab Republic. but thinks that a draft amendment is called for 100king toward the maintenance of future peace and security in the area. 1 hope 1 have made myself cieal'. 32. MI'. SCHWEITZER (Chile) (translated from Spanish): The delegation of Chile has beenfollowing the debate with great interest. It has carefully examined the documents concerning the complaint brought by Jordan which is now before the Security Council. and wishes to state its views on the matter. 33. Like other Council members. we commend the moderation shown in their statements by the two delegations ç,oncerned; it is an auspicious factor, demonstrating theil' joint desire that the calm which happily prevails in the area should be preserved. 34. The representative of Jordan has presented his case as a precise, specifie and limited complaint. the objective nature of which he wishes to maintain. This position has been subscribed to by various members of the Council, who have asked us to confine our action to the specifie matter complained of, and not to extend it or to go more deeply into causes and motives-since otherwise we might l'un the riskofdisturbingthe delicate situation existing in an area where there has been an Armistice Agreementfor many years, anAgreement which appears indeed to have been formally violated. 35. That there was a formaI breach of certain provisions of the Armistice in force cannot be doubted, since Israel has not attempted to deny it and the Mixed Armistice Commission stated, in its decision of 20 March 1961, that such was the case. 36. The commemorative parade.inJerusalemplanned for 20 April, and rehearsed for a few hours on 17 March last, included heavy war equipment; that is what cons'ltutes the breach of the Armistice Agreement, which C'learly prohibits it unless the other country concerned concurs. It would be useless to contend, as Israel has done, that a similar celebration and a similar parade were held in 1958, when'the same objection on the part of Jordan was unsuccessful in the Mixed Armistice Commission-because this time Jordan' s complaint has been approved. That is a fact which introduces a difference between the two cases. Nor is there any point in recalling-except perhaps as an occasion of generous tolerance on the part of Israel-the military displays of the same prohibited nature held by Jordan over the past year or so with 38. We therefore trust that the Cowlcil in its wisdom will succeed in finding for the dispute a solution less rigid than that proposed, which asks us to deal with only one aspect of the question-either by recommending to the Mb:ed Armistice Commission that it give fresh and broader consideration to the case, or -by urging upon the two parties concerned the necessary co..:operation for the observance of their undertakings. 39. We cannot but feel a certain uneasiness at the existing situation, which with its stark simplicity of presentation is liable to guide us towards a solution that might be regarded as unsatisfactory, since we are here faced with an episode which reflects but one aspect of the real question and may, by claiming our whole attention, distract us from the basic problem. This problem, which is formidable and far-ranging, is that of the permanent relations between the countries of the Middle East-that of lasting peace among them, a peace which we ardently desire. The events observed from afar~ without any kind of "parti pris", by countries which, like Chile, have had a well-tested and effective vocation of peace throughout their history and in their international activities, both inside and outside the United Nations, convince us that the efforts of this Council would be more fruitful andfar-reaching ifthey were directed towards the crux ofthe xp.atter and were Poot brought to bear on trivial skirmishes. 40. Chile fervently hopes that the spirit shown onthis occasion by the two parties to the dispute will continue and expand, with a view not only ta the maintenance of calm but ta the guaranteeing, at a time which we trust is not tao far abead, of peace and well-being for both peoples, and ultimately for the Middle East and the world. 41. We consider that there is an omissionin the draft resolution submitted by Ceylon and the UIÜted Arab Republic [S/4784]: both countries ought to be urged to respect and complywith the Armistice Agreement. The need for this arises from past history which has been emphasized during the debate andwhich itwould be unjust, or at least inequitable, to disregard. The amendment sponsored by the United States [S/4785] happily repairs this· omission, andmeets with out unconditional support. 42. Without it, we runthe risk of being compelled to meet periodically in order to settle minaI' disputes that both parties concerned would in turn submit to us and that would weaken the effect of the Armistice Agreement which it is ou,!' dutY ta safeguard. 43. Ml'. BENITES VINUEZA (Ecuador) (translated from Spanish): When the request was made for this item to be included in the agenda of the Security 44. Mtmy points have been clarified during the course of the debate. Wemust pay tribute to the representative of Jordan fol' the calm, detached and objective way in which he presented his argument, and to the representative of Israel for the clarityand dignity of his reply. We were becoming used to a type of discussion in which words were used as poisoned arrows, so we are bound to appreciate the example of moderation shown in this debate. 45. With regard to the substance of the question, my delegation would like to put forward an objective and impartial view. The basis for this view is the existence of an Armistice Agreement the validity of which has not been questioned by either party. There is complaint, not concerning the Ag'l'eement itself, but only concerning what has been termed a technical violation of it. 46. From a strlctly legal standpoint, we have the following factors on which to base our judgement: first, the legitimacy and effective operationof an Agreement about which there is no dispute; secondly, thefact that there has been violation, not of the essence of the Agreement, but only of one of its technical clauses; and thirdly, the recognition that there is no aggressive intent, even though there has been technical violation. 47. It seems obvious that the Agreement does not permit a certain type of armament to be brought into Jerusalem, and that its introduction by Israel constitutes a technical breach of the Agreement. But it seems equally clear that, as the representative of Israel has stated, Israel intended, not to engage in a provocative act, but only to hold a ceremony in which the military equipment would carry no ammunition and its route could be checked byobservers, the equipment itself beingwithdrawnfrom Jerusalem at the end of that ceremony. In other words, The enterprise was similar to that engaged in by Jordan on other occasions. But in the present case there Is one circumstance which has to be considered-the fact that the Mixed Armistice Commission has stigmatized the' introduction of this milital'y equipment, even though it be of a ceremonial nature, as a breach of the Armistice Agreement and has called upon the Israel authorities to refrain from any such acts. 48. This decision is of course legally binding, and my delegation must give it full support. We therefore have no objection to operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution submitted by Ceylon and the United Arab Republic [8/4784]. Operative paragraph 2 might perhaps appear redundant, since paragraph 3 ofthe Mixed Armistice Commission's decision of 20 March [8/4776], which is endorsed in operative paragraph 1 of the dl'aft resolution, .calls upon Israel to comply with the decision. 49. My delegation would, all the same, havehad sorne doubts as to whether it was reallyconstructivefor the Council to confine its action to the consideration of one 50. Accordingly, my delegatioIl will vote in favour of the draft resolution as amended by the United 8tates. 51. Ml'. LOU':"FI (United Arab Republic) (translated from French): l should like to comment briefly on the amendment which has justbeen submitted by the United 8tates representative [8/4785]. 52. My delegation cannot voteinfavourofthisamendment, for the following reasons. First, this amendment might be interpreted as placing the two parties con-' cerned on the same footing. In the present case, Jordan has done nothing; its complaint is entirely in conformity with the Armistice Agreement and the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission. But no one denies that Israel has violated that Agreement and has stated that the military parade with heary armament will take place despite the decision of the Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission. We cannot therefore place a 8tate which is disregarding this decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission on the same footing as a 8tate which is respecting the Armistice Agreement. 53. Further, the amendment to the draft resolution requests the Commission "to co-operate so as ta ensure that the General Armistice Agreement will be complied withft • To co-operate in what?Jordanhasnot done anything; it has come here to submit a complaint; but it has co-operated on the Armistice Commission. The party which has not co-operated is Israel; the party which quite simply refuses to implement the Commission' s decision is Israel. 54. In the second place, the question with which the Council is here dealing is a limited one; it cannot extend beyond the facts of the matter which is beÎore the Council. The draft resolution submitted by us jointly with the delegation of Ceylon [8/4784] reflects those facts precisely, and in our opinion the addition proposed by the United States amendment is neither useful nor necessary in the present context. We shall therefore be unable to vote for the United states amendment. 55. l associate myse1fwith the statementofthe representative of Jordan, and l ask the members' of the 8ecurity Council to bear it in mindwhen voting, il they wish peace and security to prevail in that part of the world. 56. Before concluding, l should like to mention another matter. Much has been said about Israel' s claim that the Jordanian Government has likewise brought in, for parade purposes on the Jordanian side of the Demarcation Line, military equipment other than that specified for that area under the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement. Four cases were quoted; they are listed in the letter from Israel. Once more l must point out that there has been no inquiry into the facts alleged by Israel, and no decfsion in their regard by

1 will now give the floor to the representative of Israel, in exercise of his right of reply. 58. Ml'. LOURIE (Israel): 1 thank the President for giving me the opportunity t0 make a brief statement on matters arising since my previous intervention. 59. 1 should like, first, to express the very sincere appreciation of my delegation to those membersofthe Council who in the course of their statements have expressed comprehension of the Israel position. 60. The representative of Jordan has seenfittorefer ta condemnations by the MixedArmistice Commission of Israel actions at different times as though Israel was the side always in default. Simply to put the record straight, 1 must point out that, in the course of the years that the Jordan-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission has been in operation, Jordan was condemned by the Mixed Armistice Commission on no less than 355 occasions, as against 150 findings against Israel. 61. Furthermore, he is not correct in stating that tliere were no complaints made in connexion with the bringing of military equipment into the J erusalem area. On at least two occasions-on 14 July 1959 and on 8 April 1960-complaints were made with regard to the participation of jet flights in formaI ceremonies on the Jordan side, but these complaints were not inflated into major complaints. 62. Further, in regard to the Jordan parades, the details of which were given by me over a week ago in a document circulated to the Council [S/4778] and on which we only now have a belated denial from the Jordan representative in blanket form, the Government of Israel treated these as the purely ceremonial parades they were and did not think it proper or necessary to charge either the MAC-the Mixed Armistice Commission, or ultimately this body, with such matterse It is to be regretted thatJordandid not see fit to follow that example. 63. The statement of the Jordanian representative made to the Council today contains threats, implicit and explicit, the belligerent tone ofwhichwill no doubt be duly noted by the members of this C0uncil. 1 do not propose to answer the representative of Jordan in the spirit of his statement. 64. If there is any threat to the peace, it derives not from a peaceful parade. On the contrary, the responsibility lies with that party which maintains hostile propaganda against its neighbour and which, contrary to its international obligations, refuses to negotiate a peace settlement with it. 65. If it is really desired to ma.1{e a. serious contribution to peace, 1 would ul'ge that the Government of Jordan act in pursuance of that section of the resolu- 67. Ml'. MENEMENCIOGLU (Turkey): l wish to saya few words in explanation of the way inwhich my delega.'.:ion will vote. 68. We have read the amendment now before the Council in document S/4785. and we have heard the statement of the representative of the United States in support of and in explanation of that amendment. l must state that my delegation finds itself in considerable difficulty in arriving at a decision on the utility of this amendment, which is general and truly essential in character, butwhich comes in connexionwith a question which in itself is relatively minor ill scape and in character. 69. My delegation is in complete agreement with all parts of the statement of the representative of the United States. In my own statement l had underlined the fact that my Government attaches primary importance to strict compliancewith the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement by a11 the parties concerned. My delegation is, therefore. also in complete agreement with the contents of the proposèd amendment. if these contents are considered bythemselves; and we wish to place this agreement of my delegation on the record. 70. However. as l already mentioned inmystatement at the 948th meeting, we consider the incident now under discussion as rela~ivelyminaI' incharacter. We would be reluctant to include in the resolution any statement of principle, no matter how l:ltronglywe may believe in that principle, ifwe feIt that such an addition might give the impression of a tendencyto enlarge the present disagreement in a manner whichwill allowthe introduction of other elements, especially at a time when for at least two years calm and tranquillity have prevailed in the Middle East. 71. We know that the intentions ofthe delegation of the United States are entirely against such an interpretation of its text. The statement of the representative of the United States makes that clear. What causes a doubt in our mind is onlythe possibilityof misinterpretation. 72. In these circumstances, and because ofour lackof certitude in the utility. of the proposed addition. we shall abstain on the separate vote on the amendment. but we shall vote in favour of the entire text if the amendment is carried. 73. Ml'. CHANG (Ch:.na}: In his intervention of 10 April [948th meeting]. thepermanentrepresentativeof China, Ambassador Tsiang, made the position of my delegation very clear. The drait resolution submitted by the delegations of Ceylon and the United Arab Republic is, in. the view of mydelegation. reasonable and

l shall nowputthe Unlted States amendment [8/4785] ta the vote.

l shaH now put ta the vote the draft resolution [S/4784] as amended.

l wish very briefly ta explain the vote which my delegation has just c ~st, with particular reference to the extra paragraph which was proposed by the United States delegation. 78. My delegation is clearly on record as to the importance of upholding the authority and findings of the Mixed Armistice Commission. It is part and parcelof this that, in our view, the complaint of the Jordanian delegation with respect ta the particular Incident here complained of is, in essence, justified andhas so been found to bE'l by the MixedArmistice Commission itself. l wish that to be clearly understood. 79. Operative paragraph 3, which has been adopted, in no way derogates from the first two paragraphs or from our support of them. tt does however, as l said earlier, look ta the future and ta the need for asking aIl members of the Mixed Armistice Commission to 81. Ml'. RIFA'I (Jordan): In the light ofthe resolution which has justbeenadopted, and apartfrom the manner in which the votingtook place, allow me to make this short intervention. 82. The resolution of the Security Council which has just been adopted endorses the decision of the Mixed Armistice Commission, which, in turn, embodies two main points: first, that the act by Israel of 17 March was a breach of the GeneralArmistice Agreement; and secondly, that the Mixed Armistice Commission condemns this act and calls upon the authorities of Israel to)ake the strongest measures to prevent the recurrence of such a breachofthe General Armistice Agreement, and to refrain from bringing into Jerusalem in the future any equipment in excess of that allowed under the terms of the General Armistice Agreement. 8~. The Security Council has confirmed the ruling of the Mixed Armistice Commission stated above and instructed Israel once again to preventthe recurrence of that breach of the General Armistice Agreement for which it was condemned. Should Israel defy this Security Council decision, such..!!efiance should then be met with stronger measures. The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m.