“Mulago Hospital sources said their records showed that Mrs. Bloch was admitted last Friday, but listed no details of her treatment or discharge from the hospital.” (The New York Times, 9 July 1976, p. A2)
Having regard to the veracity of the statement made on this point by the representative of Uganda, I think that we can draw conclusions about the veracity of all the remaining statements he has seen fit to make before this Council. . ..
SOMALIA. Mr. Hussen: We asked to participate in this debate to add our voice to those who preceded us, and to urge the Council to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the Zionist regime in Tel Aviv for the naked act of aggression which it has committed against the people and Government of the Republic of Uganda. We ask the Council to do so because what is at stake here is the very existence and sovereignty of a member nation. Not only does this act of terrorism and aggression unleashed by the Zionist regime against Uganda on 4 July threaten the aims and principles of the United Nations and its Charter, but it also constitutes a danger to international peace and security.
It is with great indignation that the people and Government of the Somali Democratic Republic view this unprovoked and unlawful act of aggression. This feeling of indignation is aptly summed up in the telegram transmitted by Jaalle Mohamed Siad Barre, President of the Somali Democratic Republic, to His Excellency Idi Amin, President of the Republic of Uganda. In that telegram, the text of which has been circulated as an official document of the Security Council, the President of the Somali Democratic Republic stated:
“I have followed with great shock and dismay the dastardly act of aggression perpetrated by the troops of Zionist Israeli terrorists and imperialist forces at Entebbe Airport on July 4, 1976. This barbarous action is an unprecedented and direct attack on the Republic of Uganda and its Government. It also constitutes an arrogant insult to the dignity of Africa and mankind as a whole and contravenes all norms of international behaviour and conduct. Africa and the international community must draw the necessary conclusion from this shameful act and take the appropriate action so that it may not be repeated, for it may happen to any one of us. It must be therefore vigorously condemned by all men of conscience and the international community as a whole. The wanton killing of many innocent people by the Zionist agents and the destruction of Ugandan property, including its main airport, are but an example of the natures of Zionism and its role in the Middle East, a menace and a serious threat to international peace and security. The legitimate struggle of the Arab people of Palestine to regain their homeland and the Arab nation to liberate the Zionist occupied territories shall not be stopped by these acts of terrorism and shall continue until final and complete victory is achieved. The shameful statement made by the Prime Minister of Israel stating that in support of this operation it was Israel’s ‘contribution to the fight against terrorism, a fight that has not ended’ must be a lesson to the Arab nations for the Palestinian fight for liberation cannot be equated with terrorism. In their struggle the Palestinians have always shown a deep respect for human lives and have always spared the lives of the innocent for in this case they could have blown up the aircraft. In conclusion I should like to offer to you, dear Brother, and through you to the Government and people of Uganda, on behalf of the Central Committee of the Socialist Party, people and Government of the Somali Democratic Republic our militant support and solidarity and our deep and sincere condolence for the loss of many Ugandan lives in the shameful episode. Their memory will be a guiding torch for us all. Peace be upon their souls.”
The Republic of Uganda is not the first peace-loving country whose sovereignty and territorial integrity have been violated by the arrogant racist Zionist regime. Since its illegal occupation of the Arab land of Palestine 30 years ago, this regime has been engaged in committing unprovoked aggression after aggression against sovereign nations. For an illustration of Israel’s habitual transgression and its unbelievable, barefaced inclination to indulge in an unrestrained attitude, we need only look at the surrounding Arab States. We can recall the numerous occasions on which the world came to the brink of an all-engulfing war because of the callous behaviour of the Zionist regime in the Middle East and its utter disregard for international law. The plight of the Palestinian Arab nation is a perfect example of the fiendish mentality of the Israeli regime.
It is too well known a fact that this racist Zionist regime has been engaged, through the years, in wilful violence and subversion in Africa and elsewhere. It is fitting in this regard to quote from The New York Times of 10 July 1976‚ which, in a long article dedicated to the discrediting of the Head of State of a member country of this Organization, touched incidentally upon Israel’s open interference in the internal affairs of other Arab and African countries. It stated, inter alia:
“Israel’s interest in Uganda was largely motivated by the Sudanese civil war, in which Southern Sudanese . . . had been fighting for 10 years with Northern Sudanese”.
Though it is a well-recorded fact, the paper has reconfirmed that throughout this long period Israel continued to supply “arms shipments to the Southern Sudanese”. (Ibid.) Other countries, including my own, have also been subjected to the same unwarranted interference in a variety of forms. Uganda is only the latest victim of the continuous terror and intimidation perpetrated by Israel.
Numerous hijackings, most of them politically motivated, have taken place over the years. The victims of these acts have been innocent civilian citizens of different nationalities. The international community has consistently demanded the release of these innocent people and their safe conduct to their destinations. Yet, we all know that the safety of such victims, important and legitimate as it is, cannot be a justification for a blatant act of aggression against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a State and the wanton killing of its innocent citizens. Such a despicable act could only be committed by Israel which, assured of the full support of a powerful country and always shamefully anxious to display its arrogance, has made it a major principle of its governmental policies to espouse State terrorism. Such an attitude is not the least surprising, for Israel is itself a product of terrorism.
It also made it a habit that it is customarily expected for its delegations at international fora to remind us, as it did before this Council on 9 July, of the Nazi holocaust in Europe in order to enlist sympathy and support. Israel should realize that, if the world had condemned Hitler and his Nazi philosophy based on racial purity, it is only logical that it must expect the same from the world community as Israel practices policies similar to, if not identical with, those of Hitler yesterday and those of Pretoria’s white minority regime today.
The Zionist regime claims that it was alone in planning and executing its latest atrocity in Uganda. The Government and people of the Somali Democratic Republic find it very hard to believe that Israel did not get a helping hand from its customary supporters in conducting this sordid affair, as has been the case in all its past military adventures. We feel strongly that the conspiracy is larger than has been admitted to, that the truth will come out in time, and that whoever took part in this shameful act will ultimately be uncovered.
The representative of Israel tried to convince us—especially the members of the Council—that even my country, Somalia, was involved in the hijacking of the French airbus. He tried to make the participation of the Somali Ambassador in the negotiations for the safety of the hostages look as if the Government of Somalia was linked to the venture. This sinister allegation is unfounded and slanderous, to say the least. The reason why the Somali Ambassador accepted the plea to participate in the negotiations, apart from his natural sympathy, compassion and concern for human life, was that he was the dean of the Arab Ambassadors accredited to Uganda. In that capacity, as has been explained by President Idi Amin in his communication contained in document S/12124, the Somali Ambassador agreed to participate in the negotiations along with his French counterpart. It is difficult to believe that the Israeli repr
esentative would have the insolence to distort the facts and to attempt to discredit the compassionate action undertaken by the Somali Ambassador. Had the Somali Ambassador done otherwise and refused to lend his requested services to the cause of saving the hostages, it would, in our opinion, have been an unforgivable act on his part. For this reason there is no room for the Israeli allegation. However, this is merely another demonstration of the desperate and cynical attitude which the Zionist regime has for anything that smacks of humanitarianism.
Throughout his statement, the Israeli representative continuously endeavoured to drive a wedge between the Arab States and African States by acting as the self-appointed devil’s advocate. It is not, of course, new to us that he should do so, because we know the history of Israel and the fact that it thrives on sowing seeds of trouble and subversion. We know, too, that the Tel Aviv regime derives its Inspiration, strangely enough, from discord and violence.
In his fruitless groping for previous examples of what I can describe as “justifiable violence”, the Israeli representative once again attempted to feed us another distorted version of the unfortunate incident at Loyada, a small village on the border of the Somali Democratic Republic with the so-called French Somaliland. If the Zionist representative had any desire for the truth, he would not have blinded himself to the facts of that incident. If it were not for his deviousness, he would have recalled—for it is there in the records of this Council—that, first of all, the vehicle in which the children were held was in a territory under French rule, and not in the Somali Republic’s territory, as he would have us believe. The Zionist representative, in his desperate effort to grope for an elusive justification for his regime’s shameful and unprecedented action, assembled examples of other activities involving violence which had been committed by other Powers. He cited incidents such as Mayaguez, Loyada and Entebbe—all of which are incidents of aggression by those States whose arrogance of power has made them oblivious to respect for the principles of international law and for equality and sovereignty among nations, large and small, the very principles for which this Organization was created to safeguard and to uphold. We believe that it is the duty of the Council to reject such a contention, which, if passed unchallenged, might undermine the very reason for the existence of this world body. This idea is nothing but a suggestion to return to the law of the jungle, where only the strong should survive.
Even the Organization of African Unity was not spared indiscriminate harassment on the part of the Tel Aviv representative. He felt no shame in offending an organization of 48 independent States. Allow me to refer to what he said in this respect:
“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 . . . the proceedings of this Organization. The deliberations on this occasion will doubtless be no exception”. (1939th meeting, p. 61)
Such an insolence on the part of a regime that fully shares with Pretoria’s minority regime the belief that they are superior races and that other races are inferior to them is preposterous and utterly unacceptable. Africa makes no compromise on the rejection and denunciation of such an absurd notion.
In conclusion, I should like, on behalf of my delegation, to emphasize once again that my delegation urges the Council to take adequate and prompt measures against the Israeli regime and to condemn it for its unlawful act of aggression against the Republic of Uganda.
ISRAEL. Mr. Herzog: The weight of evidence to prove Ugandan complicity has been growing by the day as the detailed statements of the hostages are analysed and new evidence becomes available. We now know from the debriefing of the passengers that the map in the hands of the leader of the hijacking group, Wilfred Bose, which he produced immediately after the plane took off from Athens, was already clearly marked with the route Athens-Benghazi-Entebbe. We know, too, as has indeed been published, that before the arrival of the plane at Entebbe, Idi Amin dispatched his personal plane to Somalia in order to pick up and bring to Entebbe the leader of the terrorists, who took control of the plane after it landed at Entebbe.
Furthermore, the members of the Council are fully aware by now that four terrorists hijacked the plane at Athens. The evidence which I have produced, and which other representatives have confirmed, shows that the plane was met at Entebbe Airport by reinforcements of terrorists, some five in number. Four terrorists hijacked the plane. Seven terrorists were accorded a State funeral with full military honours by the Government of Uganda. In other words, by all accounts—including, impliedly, by Ugandan accounts—terrorist reinforcements appeared on the scene in Entebbe. In fact, we know that they were driven onto the scene in two official Ugandan cars, one driven by a soldier in uniform.
It is interesting to note that, despite the overwhelming body of evidence which confirms the fact that the hijackers were reinforced in Kampala, there is no reference to it directly in either President Amin’s message contained in document S/12124 or the two statements made by his Foreign Minister here on Friday, 9 July.
I listened carefully to the statement made by the Foreign Minister of Mauritius, and nowhere was there any reference to the reinforcement of terrorists awaiting the hijackers in Entebbe. So far as the Foreign Minister of Mauritius is concerned, they did not exist. The eloquence of the Foreign Minister of Mauritius in speech was equalled only by his eloquent silence.
Shortly after 101 hostages were released on 1 July, the following dispatch was sent from the Associated Press in Paris:
“Hostages newly released by hijackers of an Air France jetliner arrived here early today and said three or four heavily armed men, apparently Arabs, were waiting to reinforce four original hijackers when the plane commandeered over Greece landed in Entebbe, Uganda.”
After the Israeli rescue operation, the French Newspaper Le Monde gave full details of this aerial piracy in its issue of 5 July, which included the following: (Spoke in French)
“On their arrival at Kampala, they were joined on the field, immediately after landing, by a group of four or five Palestinians armed with sub-machine guns.”
(Continued in English)
Similar reports appeared in many other newspapers, magazines and on many radio and television stations. All reports were based on information given by released hostages and Government officials. There is not the slightest doubt in anyone’s mind that in fact the hijackers were reinforced in Uganda. Careful reading of President Amin’s message to the President of the Security Council and the statement by his Foreign Minister reveal an inadvertent, indirect admission of the fact that the hijackers were indeed reinforced by other terrorists in Kampala. In President Amin’s message, he states that:
“The Israeli invaders quickly mounted an attack on the hijackers, killing seven of them.” (S/12124, annex, p. 1)
A similar reference to seven hijackers killed also appears in the Ugandan Foreign Minister’s statement on page 17 of document S/PV.1939. President Amin’s reference to “seven of them” implies that there were more than seven. However, as we all recall, only four commandeered the Air France plane after it departed from Athens Airport. Thus in fact, both President Amin and his Foreign Minister have implicitly admitted that the original hijackers were reinforced by more terrorists at Entebbe Airport in Uganda. What better proof of Uganda’s complicity in this crime does one need than the fact that Uganda allowed a reinforcement of four to five Arab armed terrorists to join the hijackers?
Furthermore, the important role played by the terrorists who joined the hijackers at Kampala adds further proof that the Entebbe part of the hijacking was a carefully planned operation which could not have been carried out without the complicity of the Government of Uganda. The New York Times, which was correctly referred to by the Foreign Minister of Mauritius as a highly respected newspapers, interviewed one of the released hostages, Mr. Michel Cojot, and the following was reported on 6 July:
‘�
��Although the West German man was clearly in charge on the plane. Mr. Cojot said, he added that it was equally clear that the four hijackers were simply the soldiers in the plot and did not have authority to negotiate for the hostages or to make any decisions beyond capturing them and keeping them calm.
“‘It was the three Arabs who joined them on the ground at Entebbe who were in charge of the further decisions,’ he said. ‘The orders were coming from somewhere else. One of them spoke Spanish.’”
In other words, the hijacking operation of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine could not have been carried out as planned unless the hijacked plane arrived at its predetermined destination, Uganda, where the leader of the operation was waiting.
If Uganda was not implicated how did it happen that these reinforcements were allowed to drive up? Why have those representatives, who have identified themselves in so moving a manner out of a feeling of common interest with Idi Amin’s Uganda and with the cause of international terror, not addressed themselves to this rather strange development, which in itself proves their thesis to be false?
Furthermore, if there was no connivance, where are the other terrorists? What has happened to the two or three survivors of the rescue operation at Entebbe Airport? Why have they not been apprehended and produced in accordance with The Hague Convention of 1970?
Since the press was quoted at length in our proceedings, let me do my share, too. Another detailed account of Ugandan collusion appeared on 5 July in The New York Times. Allow me to quote part of the article, for it summarizes numerous reports which confirm that the Ugandan authorities worked hand in glove with the terrorists. The report from Paris states:
“Officials and released hostages said here today that they had substantial evidence that President Idi Amin had been in collusion with the hijackers of an Air France airbus in the seizure of the plane as well as after it landed in Uganda. . . .
90 Minutes at Entebbe Page 21
