In the week after Entebbe, the UN’s huge antiIsraeli bloc tried again. A motion to censure Israel by the Organization of African Unity failed from lack of support. The Security Council at long last was unable to turn a blind eye to political terrorism. But it was still sufficiently intimidated to say nothing against terrorism.
“Israel was not condemned and was therefore vindicated,” ran the argument of those who greeted the outcome as a victory.
What a dismal comment upon international morality! Israel was not condemned! Values have been upended. Peace at any price is now the objective of a world forum born out of the Holocaust to preserve the humanities—not to sacrifice them for survival at any cost.
Israel’s sense of isolation in the days before July 4 was deepened by that Security Council performance. I remembered the words of a deputy Israel Air Force commander in the rear cockpit of a jet while I maneuvered above the wasteland where Solomon once pulled down the Temple.
Yerucham Amitai said over the intercom: “You think we’d do it again?”
“I have that feeling,” I replied. We were flying at a time when terrorism had found new ways of eating into the state of Israel. The War of Attrition. Something that nobody quite knew how to handle, because in fighting such terrorism there was a danger of losing your own sense of right and wrong.
“You’re right,” replied Amitai. “We’ll never submit to liquidation again.”
Amitai had survived the death camps to fly for Israel. He had told me about Warsaw, the underground, his escape from Nazi hands. He had worked as a bricklayer in Palestine to learn to fly. He became so good that he flew almost every plane in service. He trained the Uganda Air Force. He trained the airmen of Singapore and other small states. It became a mission—to teach the weak to protect themselves against the bullies. When he was killed in a pointless crash, I felt a sense of failure. His story haunted me and yet I had never known how to voice for him the underlying sense of unyielding resolve.
But there is a time for the dead to speak.
Amitai would have heard the Security Council speeches and he would have shrugged.
“We depend on nobody,” he would have said, repeating his words to me. “If Israel should ever fail to protect her own, she would cease to have meaning. We have been forced into aggressive defense and the stakes keep getting higher.
“In the end, we may have to choose between action that might pull down the Temple of Humanity itself rather than surrender even a single member of the family to the executioners.
“Survival in other circumstances is not survival at all. And all of us, whatever our race, won’t be worth a damn if we buy our lives at the cost of our conscience.”
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATE
Excerpts from the Provisional Verbatim Record
July 9, 12, and 13, 1976 New York City
UGANDA. Lieutenant Colonel Juma Oris Abdullah, Minister for Foreign Affairs: The Ugandan delegation wishes to express its thanks to the members of the Organization of African Unity for requesting the convening of the Security Council to consider the aggression of Zionist Israel against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Uganda, My delegation would like also to thank you, Mr. President, as well as all the other members of the Security Council, for agreeing to convene this meeting.
At about 4 o’clock East Africa Time, 0100 hours GMT, on 28 June 1976, His Excellency Al-Hajji Field-Marshal Dr. Idi Amin Dada, V.C., D.S.O., M.C., Life President of the Republic of Uganda, was informed by a telephone call from Entebbe Air Control that a hijacked French plane with 250 persons on board was circling over Entebbe, having only 15 minutes’ fuel left, and was seeking permission to land.
President Amin was placed in a dilemma: whether to refuse permission for the aircraft to land, thereby risking every likelihood of crushing and killing all those aboard, or to allow it to land safely at Entebbe and face the consequences of a hijack situation.
Taking those facts into account, and motivated by humanitarian considerations, the President directed that the aircraft be allowed to land safely at Entebbe airport. A contingent of security forces was positioned to guard against any possible danger. To avoid interference with the normal air traffic and also to enable the Ugandan authorities to ascertain the character and nature of the hijackers, the plane was directed to taxi to the old airport, which is about one mile away.
It took several hours before the initial contact with those in charge of the aircraft was made. After the initial contact the Ugandan authorities learned that the hijackers of the aircraft were members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and that they had with them over 250 hostages on board of different nationalities and different age groups. The hijackers stated that they did not want anybody to go near the aircraft and that, whatever security arrangements the Ugandan authorities intended to make, the security officers concerned should not go within a radius of 50 metres of the aircraft. After further communication with the hijackers, the President of Uganda was able to convince them to allow the hostages to be supplied with refreshments. At that point the hijackers informed the Ugandan authorities that they were waiting for further instructions from their leaders and to that end they wanted the fact of their being at Entebbe to be publicized. It was also at this point that they issued a long statement of general policy of the PFLP, demanding that it be given as wide publicity as possible. Being anxious to co-operate for the sake of the hostages, the Ugandan Government agreed that the statement would be repeatedly broadcast by the Uganda Broadcasting Corporation and publicized in the local press so as to keep the hijackers appeased.
Initially the Ugandan authorities’ intention was to offer the hijackers fuel and food supplies and request them to proceed elsewhere. They were extremely reluctant, and refused to proceed anywhere until they had made contacts with their leaders and made their motives for the hijacking known. This situation continued for most of that day, during which very tricky and delicate negotiations were being conducted by President Amin personally, resulting in the hijackers agreeing that the hostages still under their guard would be allowed out of the aircraft and securely transferred to the old airport building. That process was a very delicate one, carried out at a time when the hijackers had become highly irritable and very suspicious of any possible disarming action by Ugandan authorities. It involved the aircraft being moved as near as possible to the old airport transit launch. For this process, the hijackers demanded that they first inspect the transit launch and the entire building to ensure their own security and that of their hostages. Some of them accordingly went ahead of the aircraft, placed explosives in strategic positions and demanded the withdrawal of the Ugandan security forces to a position 200 metres away from the aircraft terminal buildings.
At this point it is relevant to mention that, in addition to having high explosives which included hand grenades, the hijackers also had automatic weapons. As Uganda has clearly stated in various communiques on the hijacking, the Ugandan armed forces were not allowed by the hijackers to go near the airport building. That was part of the bargain. However, once the hostages and hijackers were in the airport building, after further bargaining, many facilities were made available to the hostages, such as medical and food supplies and other welfare maintenance, which were administered by the few civilians while negotiations continued with the hijackers.
Most of 29 June 1976 was spend in finding out the modalities of concrete negotiations while waiting to learn the wishes of the hijackers. By the end of the day, the hijackers proposed that the Somali Ambassador to Uganda, in his capacity as the dean of the Arab League, should be their spokesman. Also during the course of the day, the hijackers circulated a questionnaire to the hostages seeking information about their nationalities, professions and ages. The demands of the hijackers had not yet been made known by the end of that day. Also during that day, the hijackers accepted the Ugandan authorities’ request that, in addition to food supplies, a medical team consisting o
f one doctor and several nursing staff be made available to hostages in need of medical attention.
On 30 June, following the report by the medical team and President Amin’s persistent appeals, the hijackers agreed to release 47 hostages including the old, the sick and some children. It was on the same day that for the first time the hijackers issued their demand. This was for the release of certain persons imprisoned in Israel, Germany, France, Switzerland and Kenya, totalling in all 53. The demand was given to the Somali Ambassador as well as to the Ugandan authorities. The Ugandan authorities in turn passed it on to the French Ambassador. On that occasion also, the hijackers set a new deadline of 2 p.m. East African Time, 1100 hours GMT, 1 July, by which time all the persons whose release they had requested should be transported to Entebbe for an exchange of hostages.
On 1 July 1976, which was the first deadline the hijackers had set for the release of the 53 persons who were allegedly held by the five Governments referred to above, President Amin was not only able to persuade the hijackers to extend the deadline to 4 July 1976, but also continued to plead for the release of the remaining hostages.
The response received from the hijackers was the release of 100 hostages belonging to nations other than Israel or having dual nationalities, and the extension of the deadline to 1100 hours GMT on 4 July 1976 in order for the hijackers to secure their demands. Up to this point, as can be seen, President Amin had personally played a very vital part in talking the hijackers into agreeing to the release of their hostages. He had spent virtually the whole time without any sleep. In appreciation of his efforts, for example, he received a number of messages from world leaders, such as the President of France, who, in two messages within two days, expressed his deep appreciation for the strenuous efforts President Amin was exerting to have the hostages released, and urged him to continue so that all the hostages could be released.
On 2 July 1976, President Amin had to go to Mauritius, where he was to open the thirteenth session of the Organization of African Unity’s Assembly of Heads of State and Government, and also to hand over the chairmanship of the Organization to the new chairman. While in Mauritius President Amin took the opportunity fully to brief his colleagues on his efforts to have the hostages released. In his statement to his colleagues, President Amin included an appeal to all Governments concerned to do everything possible to save the lives of the remaining hostages. He also took the occasion to brief the Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. Kurt Waldheim, fully on the matter, urging him also to use his good offices to impress upon the Governments concerned the gravity and urgency of the matter.
Because of the delicate situation back home, President Amin had to cut short his stay in Mauritius to return home early on the evening of 3 July 1976. Immediately on his return, the President quickly re-established contact with all those concerned, including the hostages, whom he personally addressed in the presence of the Somali Ambassador, now for the third time, reassuring them of his untiring efforts to secure their release. Specifically, the President took the occasion to thank the hostages for the message of appreciation which they had issued earlier in the day for the efforts he was making on their behalf.
Hardly had President Amin settled down when Israel’s invading force landed at Entebbe. As you were informed, Mr. President, in a message sent to you by my President on 4 July, at 2120 hours GMT, three Zionist Israeli transport planes landed by surprise and without any authority from the Ugandan Government at Entebbe International Airport. Soon after landing, they proceeded straight to the old airport building where the hostages and the crew of the French airbus, which was hijacked in flight between Tel Aviv and Paris, were being held by Palestinian commandos. Out of the aircraft, two military jeeps drove and the invaders, using hand grenades, machine-guns, bazookas and other explosives, indiscriminately attacked the airport building and the Ugandan soldiers who were guarding the building at a distance of 200 metres and who were armed only with light arms in accordance with the conditions laid down by the hijackers. As a result of this attack on the building, the invaders killed seven hijackers and some hostages and a number of Ugandan soldiers, injuring many others as well. The Israeli invaders also blasted the old airport terminal building, damaged the runway and destroyed a number of Ugandan aircraft and extensive installations.
I should like to draw the attention of this Council to some aspects of the Israeli invasion that clearly indicate that Israel did not mount the invasion without the knowledge, collaboration and assistance of a few other countries. Africa should not allow any part of its soil to be used by the Zionist Israelis and their imperialist masters or collaborators to attack another sister country. According to the information available to us, which information has been confirmed by the international press, Zionist Israel’s plan to invade Entebbe was decided upon in Tel Aviv on the first of this month. That is the very day President Amin had convinced the hijackers to extend the deadline for their demands and had also succeeded in getting the hijackers to release more of the hostages.
The Ugandan delegation has further knowledge that the Israeli plan to invade Entebbe must have been conceived as far back as when the hijacked plane touched down in Uganda. It is of interest to note, for example, that on the very night of the invasion, exactly one hour and forty minutes after the Israeli force landed at Entebbe, the Voice of America was broadcasting the success of the mission. This was in its broadcast of 2 a.m., East African Standard Time, 2300 hours GMT. All the British Sunday papers that normally are published by midnight of Saturday had, in great detail, the story of the so-called successful operation at Entebbe.
The Sunday Express, for example, in its edition of 2:30 a.m. of that same morning, gleefully reported that
“An Israeli commando force today rescued all hostages held by pro-Palestinian guerrillas at Entebbe Airport, Uganda, an Israeli spokesman said in Tel Aviv early today. The Air France crew was also freed, the spokesman said. Explosions rocked Entebbe Airport after three Israeli aircraft swooped down.”
I should like to make it clear that Uganda has never and will never condone international piracy. It is not therefore true to say, as has been alleged by the ruling circles in Israel, that Uganda collaborated with the hijackers. The Ugandan Government got involved in this affair accidentally and purely on humanitarian considerations. Perhaps the crew of the French airbus will be in a better position to tell us how the hijacking ended in Uganda. According to what we know from press reports, the French airbus belonging to Air France, flight 139, started from Tel Aviv en route to Paris via Athens. It was after it took off from Athens that the hijackers took over and forced the aircraft to land in Benghazi, from where it took off after refuelling. Its request to land at Khartoum was refused and, possibly, that is why it ended up at Entebbe with only a fifteen minute supply of fuel. It can be deduced from this story that the hijackers wanted to go to Khartoum.
Uganda gave all the help and hospitality it was capable of giving to all the hostages. The response to this humanitarian gesture by Zionist Israel—the vehicle of imperialism—was to invade Uganda, once again living up to its record of barbarism and banditry. By this act of naked aggression against Uganda, the Zionists killed Ugandans who were trying to protect the hostages and inflicted great damage on Ugandan property.
Is this a worthy Member of this Organization? Uganda has made its view on Israel’s membership in the United Nations repeatedly clear in many international forums, the last of which was the address to the thirtieth session of the General Assembly by President Amin.
We call upon this Council unreservedly to condemn in the strongest possible terms Israel’s barbaric, unprovoked and unwarranted aggression against the sovereign Republic of Uganda. Uganda demands full compensation from Israel for the damage to life and property caused during its invasion. Our authorities are in the process of working out the particulars of the claim arising out of the damage.
I can only hope that no other African State can in any way be tainted wit
h suspicion in this sordid affair, for this would mean that no one on the whole continent could trust or support the ideal of African unity. This unity has been forged through the sweat, brains and blood of all our African brothers. Let not today be, even in doubt, a day of suspicion.
I wish, on behalf of President Amin, the Government and all the people of Uganda, to end my delegation’s submission by expressing our thanks to all those countries and organizations, especially the Organization of African Unity, that have since the unwarranted aggression against the innocent people of Uganda sent messages of sympathy, solidarity and support, which we very much appreciate.
ISRAEL. Chaim Herzog, Ambassador to the United Nations: From a purely formal point of view, this meeting arises from a complaint brought against the Government of Israel. However, let me make it quite clear that sitting here as the representative of the Government of Israel, as I have the honour to do, I am in no way sitting in the dock as the accused party. On the contrary, I stand here as an accuser on behalf of free and decent people in this world.
I stand here as an accuser against the forces of evil which have unleashed a wave of privacy and terrorism which threatens the very foundations of human society.
I stand here as an accuser of all those evil forces which in their inherent cowardice and abject craven attitude see blameless wayfarers and innocent women and children—yes, even babes in arms—a legitimate target for their evil intentions.
I stand here as an accuser of the countries that, because of evil design or lack of moral backbone, have collaborated with these bloodthirsty terrorists.
I stand here as an accuser of all those in authority throughout the world who for reasons of cynical expediency have collaborated with terrorism.
90 Minutes at Entebbe Page 17
