90 Minutes at Entebbe

by William Stevenson

  “The decision to use force was based 100 per cent and entirely on a single consideration, to get the crew and the ship back.”

  I could continue and present dozens of cases which reveal that international precedent and international law fully justify the Israeli action and show that every country that respects itself would have taken the same action in similar circumstances had it considered such action feasible.

  This principle was emphasized by the British Government in the case of British merchant seamen prisoners of war being transported on a German ship, Altmark, back to Germany through the territorial waters of Norway in February 1940. The British flotilla led by the destroyer Cossack entered the territorial waters of Norway, then a neutral country, which had allowed passage to this German ship. And in 1940 those British prisoners were prisoners of war taken prisoner in accordance with the law of war. Mr. Winston Churchill personally authorized British ships to fire at the Norwegian naval ships in the area should they open fire and thereby endanger the British force. He sent the following order to Captain Vian on the Cossack with regard to the Norwegian torpedo boat:

  “If she fires upon you . . . you should defend yourself using no more force than is necessary and ceasing fire when she desists”.

  Sir Winston Churchill in his history of the Second World War enunciates the principle which guided him:

  “What mattered at home and in the Cabinet was whether British prisoners were found on board or not . . . This was a dominant factor”.

  What mattered to the Government of Israel in this instance was the lives of the hostages, in danger of their very lives. No consideration other than this humanitarian consideration motivated the Government of Israel.

  Israel’s rescue operation was not directed against Uganda. Israeli forces were not attacking Uganda—and they were certainly not attacking Africa. They were rescuing their nationals from a band of terrorists and kidnappers who were being aided and abetted by the Ugandan authorities. The means used were the minimum necessary to fulfill that purpose, as is laid down in international law.

  Some parallels could be drawn with the right of an individual to use appropriate means to defend himself if he kills someone who is trying to kill him. He is not liable to be found guilty of murder. Judgement takes into account the context and the purpose of the act. The same applies to the use of force in international affairs.

  Over the years, Israel in pursuance of its policy of aiding developing countries helped Uganda, as indeed it has cooperated and continues to co-operate with many fellow developing countries throughout the world, including countries in Africa. But there is a limit to the aid which we were prepared to make available to Uganda. In 1972 President Amin came to Israel, produced maps describing his proposed plan to invade Tanzania and asked for Israeli air support in the planned action, including the bombing of Dar Es Salaam. Israel’s reply to this preposterous and wicked proposition was such as to bring about a dramatic change in the attitude to Israel on the part of Field Marshal Amin. His frustration with Israel’s attitude to his plans for dealing with Tanzania, coupled with the lavish blandishments preferred to him by the ruler of Libya, combined to produce an extreme, violent, anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli attitude on the part of the ruler of Uganda.

  The move by the Organization of African Unity to bring this complaint to the Security Council must appear to be completely incongruous were one’s senses not completely dulled by the utter incongruity of some of the proceedings of this Organization. The deliberations on this occasion will doubtless be no exception.

  Let me recall to my African colleagues the text of a resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity in 1970.

  “The Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity, meeting in its fourteenth ordinary session in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 27 February to 6 March 1970.

  “Having heard the declaration made by the Foreign Minister of Ethiopia regarding the repeated sabotage and hijacking of civil aircraft thereby endangering the safety of passengers,

  “Conscious of the disastrous consequences resulting from such criminal acts of international air travel,

  “1. Condemns all attempts and acts of hijacking and sabotaging of civil aircraft;

  “2. Calls upon all States to undertake strict measures to protect civilian air travel from being endangered;

  “3. Appeals to all States to apprehend and punish such criminals in order to ensure the safety of international air travel.”

  How do they reconcile their attitude with the text of a resolution on this very issue which they all accepted? Here we are again being selective. Do the member States of the OAU not realize that by condoning acts of piracy and hijacking they are laying themselves open to such acts on their own airlines and in their own countries? Are we to understand that there is to be a selective cataloguing of hijacking, of international murder, of piracy, of brutality and of brigandery according to race, colour or continent to which the murderer or transgressor belongs?

  We the Jewish people are only too familiar with this type of selective behaviour and with the awful catastrophe and doom which it brings to those who engage in it.

  In this context, may I recall that only last month, in a discussion at this Council table, in reply to remarks made by the representative of the Soviet Union on the issue of terror, I recalled that a distinguished Soviet Foreign Minister, Maxim Litvinov, had once said “Peace is indivisible”. I submitted then that terrorism too is indivisible. You cannot be selective about it. The nations of the world will either join hands to destroy this scourge which affects mankind, or they will be destroyed by it.

  It is not enough to raise your voice in horror when it affects only you. If terrorism is bad, it is bad for everybody, in every case, on every occasion, by whomever committed, and whoever the victim might be. It must be eliminated.

  Summing up the daring and imaginative operation which we are discussing, my Prime Minister stated in the Knesset on 4 July that:

  “This rescue operation is an achievement of great importance in the struggle against terrorism. It is Israel’s contribution to humanity’s struggle against international terror, but it should not be viewed as the final chapter. It will give us encouragement as we continue our efforts, but the struggle is not over; new efforts, new methods and unremitting sophistication will be required. Terrorism will find us neither immobilized nor hidebound by routine.”

  In many ways, this is a moment of truth for this Organization. If it will seize this opportunity courageously and without flinching to join hands in a war against international terror for the benefit of ordinary men and women throughout this world, then it will be serving the purpose for which it was established. It can yet retrieve, perhaps, in small measure, the prestige and goodwill which it has dissipated by becoming hostage to despots and extremists.

  The murder of 11 Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972 moved the Secretary-General to demand of the General Assembly to devise measures for the eradication of the scourge of terrorism off the map of the world. The Arab States and their friends managed to “bury” the subject by means of their “automatic majority”. Today the question of international terrorism is before the Security Council, not the General Assembly.

  If the Council will fail to seize this opportunity which has been granted it to eliminate the scourge of terrorists, kidnappers, hijackers and blackmailers from our midst, then it will plunge to the lowest depths in the eyes of mankind and will disappear in history as yet another great and tragic lost opportunity in history.

  It has fallen to the lot of my small country, embattled as we are, facing the problems which we do, to demonstrate to the world that there is an alternative to surrender to terrorism and blackmail.

  It has fallen to our lot to prove to the world that this scourge of international terror can be dealt with. It is now for the nations of the world, regardless of political differences which may divide them, to unite against this common enemy which recognizes no
authority, knows no borders, respects no sovereignty, ignores all basic human decencies, and places no limits on human bestiality.

  We come with a simple message to the Council: We are proud of what we have done, because we have demonstrated to the world that in a small country, in Israel’s circumstances, with which the members of this Council are by now all too familiar, the dignity of man, human life and human freedom constitute the highest values. We are proud not only because we have saved the lives of over 100 innocent people—men, women and children—but because of the significance of our act for the cause of human freedom.

  We call on this body to declare war on international terror, to outlaw it and eradicate it wherever it may be. We call on this body, and above all we call on the Member States and countries of the world, to unite in a common effort to place these criminals outside the pale of human society, and with them to place any country which cooperates in any way in their nefarious activities.

  In calling this body to action I cannot ignore its limitations, which are daily demonstrated by the fact that this body—this Council—has sat silent through 15 months of the greatest tragedy besetting the world today in the Lebanon, while a nation is torn apart, tens of thousands are killed, tens of thousands more are wounded, and the cup of human suffering overflows daily.

  Let me remind you that, when the hijacking took place, this Security Council was debating the report of the so-called Palestine Committee. The Security Council held four meetings on the Palestinian question while an act of terror carried out by Palestinian terrorists was taking place. Yet this Council did not even see fit to raise the question and plead for the release of the innocent civilians.

  If this body fails to take action, we call on all freedom-loving countries in the world to come together outside the framework of this body, establish accepted norms of behaviour in relation to terrorists, and declare in no uncertain terms that each and every one of them will have nothing whatsoever to do with any country which violates these norms and which encourages terrorism.

  Once hijackers have no country in which to land their planes because receiving such a plane would mean exclusion from the world community, or part of the world community, whether in the field of air transportation, trade, commerce or international relations, there will be no more hijacking.

  We are proud to have given the lead in this struggle against international terrorism. This debate is an opportunity for the world to take action on this issue which can affect the lives of every man and woman and child in the world. Those countries which fail to take a clear and unequivocal stand on this issue for reasons of expediency or cowardice will stand damned by all the decent people in this world and despised in history.

  There is a time in the affairs of man when even Governments must make difficult decisions guided not by considerations of expediency but by considerations of morality. Israel was guided by these considerations in risking much to save its citizens. May we hope that others will be guided by these principles too?

  UGANDA. Mr. Abdalla: I shall not now reply fully to what the representative of Zionist Israel said, but there is one important point in which I wish to reply immediately. I hope to have an opportunity to reply in detail later regarding the unfounded allegations against Uganda and some other friendly countries of Africa.

  This world body has been informed of the Israeli invasion of Uganda on 4 July 1976. We are all aware of the efforts made by His Excellency Al-Hajji Field-Marshal Dr. Idi Amin Dada, V.C., D.S.O., M.C., President of the Republic of Uganda, and the entire people of Uganda to save the lives of all the hostages, numbering 250.

  Up to the time of Israel’s invasion in the early hours of Sunday, 4 July, President Amin had succeeded in having more than half the hostages released. At the risk of his own life, my President even cut short his stay in Mauritius in order to continue negotiations, thereby saving the lives of the remaining hostages. In his humanitarian efforts my President was concerned not only with the release of all hostages but also about their welfare. In so doing, the basic needs of life—for instance, food and medical services—were provided to all the hostages without discrimination.

  It was in this spirit that Mrs. Dora Bloch, who had a piece of food stuck in her throat, was immediately rushed to Uganda’s best hospital for medical treatment. When she got better in the evening of Saturday, 3 July, she was returned by the medical authorities to the old Entebbe airport to join the other hostages. In accordance with the understanding given by the Uganda Government to the hijackers, this was done in order not to jeopardize the lives of the hostages who were at that time still at Entebbe airport.

  The Israelis committed a naked act of aggression by invading Entebbe airport where the hostages, including Mrs. Dora Bloch, were being held by the hijackers. The Israelis, as the Council has already been informed, used all kinds of weapons, shooting indiscriminately. In the process, many lives, including those of Ugandan soldiers, hijackers, hostages and members of the Israeli invading forces, were lost. The members of the invading force took away all the hostages—dead, injured or otherwise. They also took away all their members of the invading force—again, dead or injured. Therefore, it is for Israel to answer regarding the whereabouts of Mrs. Dora Bloch.

  The press reports and diplomatic sources according to which one diplomat saw Mrs. Dora Bloch in hospital on Sunday are false. There is no concrete information about it. Everyone knows about the aggression that was launched against the people of Uganda, which resulted in much loss of life, and my President tried his best to do everything peacefully, but the Israeli aggression would not allow this. So it is Israel that is responsible for answering as to the whereabouts of Mrs. Dora Bloch.

  I have done my very best to avoid mentioning Kenya, as it is a sister State and a neighbouring State of Uganda. Unfortunately, the representative of Kenya mentioned Uganda in his statement. I had in mind the Organization of African Unity, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mauritius is here, and not to mention much about Kenya.

  So, I should like the Council to follow exactly what are the facts regarding Kenya on this invasion. On 1 July a special Israel military mission was dispatched to Nairobi to communicate the decision on the invasion to the Kenya authorities and, presumably, obtain their clearance and assistance in the operation.

  We have irrefutable evidence that that request was readily granted. Besides our own sources of information, I should like to quote from a story on the incident filed from Nairobi by a Mr. James MacManus and published in the London newspaper The Guardian of Monday, 5 July 1976. That story reads, in part:

  “Although the Kenyan Government has offered no statement on the attack, and is unlikely to do so, officials here have been at pains to minimize the Government’s role in the operation. As seen from Nairobi, the sequence of events runs as follows:

  “At 9 o’clock local time on Saturday night (7 p.m. British time) a number of eyewitnesses at Kenya’s busy international airport reported seeing the arrival of three troop transport planes, allegedly Israeli C-131 military aircraft.

  “Shortly afterwards, an airport lounge was turned into a makeshift field hospital complete with operating table, anaesthetic equipment, and oxygen canisters. Kenya Regular Army troops and members of the paramiltary General Service Unit (GSU) had earlier moved in to secure the airport area.

  “Around midnight the three aircraft carrying Israeli troops, members of a counter-terrorist unit, took off for the one-hour flight to Entebbe.”

  From that story it is clear that Israeli invading aircraft not only were allowed to overfly Kenya but were given Kenyan landing and service facilities on their way to raid Uganda and on their way back to Israel.

  Another version of the raid is given by another English newspaper, the Financial Times of Monday, 5 July 1976. That version states in part:

  “According to reports from Nairobi large numbers of Israeli security men arrived in the city during last week and were much in evidence, along with Kenyan security forces
, at Embakasi airport as the Israeli aircraft refueled and medical attention was given.”

  Although in this submission we have shown that a sister member State of the Organization of African Unity connived in the invasion of our country, we wish to state before this Council that Uganda still regards the people of Kenya as their brothers and sisters, and we express the hope that the authorities in Kenya were somehow misled into collaborating in this heinous act.

  Accordingly, Uganda does not intend to undertake any retaliatory measures against Kenya for this collaboration.

  I should like to mention here my President’s statement at the time of the opening of the Organization of African Unity summit in Mauritius. He also gave booklets to all members of the Organization of African Unity proving that he had no ambitions for even an inch of Kenyan soil and that he and the people of Uganda as a whole respect the charter of the Organization of African Unity. Fortunately, the current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity is here. He will say more about the statement by my colleague from Kenya concerning alleged Ugandan claims on Kenyan soil.

  ISRAEL. Mr. Herzog: The remarks by the representative of Uganda about Mrs. Dora Bloch give rise to very considerable concern, because what he has said about her is a blatant untruth; it does not accord with the facts that have been published and that are known not only to Israel but also to other countries.

  Let me quote from The New York Times of today, 9 July 1976:

  “. . . in the British House of Commons yesterday a Government minister said Mrs. Bloch had been visited in the hospital by a member of the High Commission on the day after the Israeli raid”—

  that is, on 4 July 1976.

  “The diplomat reported that she was being guarded by two men in plainclothes and that he was denied access to her when he returned an hour later.