 |
UN Security Council
Resolution 95 |
| Middle East | peacewatch | top stories | documents | culture | dialog | history | Maps | donations |
|
UN Security Council
Resolution 95 |
| Middle East | peacewatch | top stories | documents | culture | dialog | history | Maps | donations |
Introduction
Security Council resolution 95 concerned freedom of navigation in the Suez canal. The Egyptians claimed that they were still at war with Israel and therefore could embargo goods destined for Israel and routed through the Suez canal. The security Council found that this practice was in contradiction to the armistice agreements. However, the Egyptians did not desist from this practice until freedom of navigation was guaranteed to Israel in return for withdrawal from the areas conquered in the 1956 Suez campaign. Egypt allowed goods destined for Israel through the canal and through the Straits of Tiran to the port of Eilat until Egyptian President Nasser closed the canal and the straights to Israeli shipping in 1967. This act was deemed to be a Casus Belli by Israel and by the American and European guarantors of freedom of passage, but they were unwilling to do anything about it. The closure of the Straits of Tiran led to the 6 day war.
Notice - Copyright
This introduction is Copyright 2002 by MidEastWeb http://www.mideastweb.org and the author. Please tell your friends about MidEastWeb and link to this page. Please do not copy this page to your Web site. You may print this page out for classroom use provided that this notice is appended, and you may cite this material in the usual way. Other uses by permission only. The source material below is placed in the public domain and is free of copy restrictions.
| UNITED NATIONS |
S
|
|
Security Council |
||
| S/RES/95 (1951) S/2322 1 September 1951 |
||
|
|
||
The Security Council,
Recalling
that in its resolution 73 (1949) of 11 August 1949 relating to the conclusion of
Armistice Agreements between Israel and the neighbouring Arab States it drew
attention to the pledges in these Agreements "against any further acts of
hostility between the parties"
Recalling further
that in its resolution 89 (1950) of 17 November 1950 it reminded the States
concerned that the Armistice Agreements to which they were parties contemplated
"the return of permanent peace in Palestine", and, therefore, urged them and the
other States in the area to take all such steps as would lead to the settlement
of the issues between them,
Noting
the report of the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision
Organization in Palestine to the Security Council of 12 June 1951,1/
Further noting
that the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization recalled the
statement of the senior Egyptian delegate in Rhodes on 13 January 1949, to the
effect that his delegation was "inspired with every spirit of co-operation,
conciliation and a sincere desire to restore peace in Palestine", and that the
Egyptian Government has not complied with the earnest plea of the Chief of Staff
made to the Egyptian delegate on 12 June 1951, that it desist from the present
practice of interfering with the passage through the Suez Canal of goods
destined for Israel,
Considering
that since the armistice regime, which has been in existence for nearly two and
a half years, is of a permanent character, neither party can reasonably assert
that it is actively a belligerent or requires to exercise the right of visit,
search and seizure for any legitimate purpose of self-defence.
Finds
that the maintenance of the practice mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the
present resolution is inconsistent with the objectives of a peaceful settlement
between the parties and the establishment of a permanent peace in Palestine set
forth in the Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel;2/
Finds further
that such practice is an abuse of the exercise of the right of visit, search and
seizure;
Further finds
that that practice cannot in the prevailing circumstances be justified on the
ground that it is necessary for self-defence;
And further noting
that the restrictions on the passage of goods through the Suez Canal to Israel
ports are denying to nations at no time connected with the conflict in Palestine
valuable supplies required for their economic reconstruction, and that these
restrictions together with sanctions applied by Egypt to certain ships which
have visited Israel ports represent unjustified interference with the rights of
nations to navigate the seas and to trade freely with one another, including the
Arab States and Israel,
Calls upon
Egypt to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial
shipping and goods through the Suez Canal wherever bound and to cease all
interference with such shipping beyond that essential to the safety of shipping
in the Canal itself and to the observance of the international conventions in
force.
Adopted at the 558th meeting by 8 votes to none,
with 3 abstentions (China, India, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
______________________
1/
Ibid., Supplement for 1 April through 30 June 1951,
document S/2194.
2/
Ibid., Fourth Year, Special Supplement No. 3.