been killed in the course of the Israeli attack, continued Le Monde, adding sagely: There is considerable speculation as to why Syrian army officers should have been guarding French agricultural machinery purchased by the Lebanese Department of Agriculture. The newspaper did not explain that it was their reporter, Pierre Gamin, who had done the speculating once he had elicited a hotch-potch of facts from a member of the Byblos ’screw, from a policeman who had been present when the bodies of the dead men had been found in Shed 27, and from an attractive secretary in the Port Captain’s office.
In a leading article commenting on the Israeli raid and the strange circumstances surrounding it, Le Monde observed: The conclusion seems inescapable that the ‘agricultural machinery’ consigned to Beirut was a French arms shipment destined for the Syrian military forces. That it was shrouded in such secrecy, and attracted the attention of an Israeli commando operation, suggests that it must have been of a very special nature. Until such time as the French Government issues a statement in clarification there is likely to be much uninformed speculation. This can only be damaging to France.
The cat was well and truly out of the bag.
Intense diplomatic and media activity followed publication of the Le Monde report.
In Damascus the Syrian cabinet was called together for the third time in twenty-four hours, on this occasion primarilyto consider the situation in the light of the Le Monde report.
It was decided that no statement about the missing weapons should be made until the matter had been discussed fully with the French Government. The Minister of Defence was deputed to brief the Syrian Ambassador in Paris, and instruct him to call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Quai d’Orsay without delay.
There was long discussion by the Syrian Cabinet on the delicacy of the situation, observing that, although directed against Syrian military personnel and equipment, the Israeli operation had taken place on Lebanese not Syrian soil. It was finally agreed that the Lebanese Government should be asked to report the incident to the United Nations Organization and to lodge a strongly-worded protest against Israeli aggression.
Over the weekend of October 9th/10th there were urgent cabinet meetings in Paris, Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem. Notwithstanding intense pressure from the media none of the governments concerned was prepared to issue a statement. All enquiries were met with a firm ‘no comment’.
On Monday, October 11th, the Syrian Minister of Defence announced that part of a shipment of arms, ‘products of high technology with an exceptional potential for destruction’, had been interfered with by an Israeli commando unit while in transit to Syria. No mention was made of the place or date of the incident, the outcome of the ‘interference’, or where the arms had come from.
This guarded statement was soon overtaken by events for the next day the BBC evening news service in London carried a report that the target for the Israeli commando operation in Beirut harbour on the night of the 5th/6th October had been a consignment of tactical nuclear missiles supplied by France to the Syrian Government in terms of a secret agreement. It was understood that the Israelis had succeeded in seizingonly a small part of the consignment. Accounts of the incident , continued the BBC, were as yet confused and contradictory but it had been established that a number of Syrian army officers and at least one Israeli soldier had been killed.
The Israeli Government at once denied that it was in any way involved. It repudiated in advance any charge of aggression and challenged the Lebanese and Syrian Governments to furnish evidence in support of the allegations made.
On the following day The Times confirmed and amplified the BBC report. The missiles supplied by the French to the Syrians were, said the newspaper, France’s
In a leading article commenting on the Israeli raid and the strange circumstances surrounding it, Le Monde observed: The conclusion seems inescapable that the ‘agricultural machinery’ consigned to Beirut was a French arms shipment destined for the Syrian military forces. That it was shrouded in such secrecy, and attracted the attention of an Israeli commando operation, suggests that it must have been of a very special nature. Until such time as the French Government issues a statement in clarification there is likely to be much uninformed speculation. This can only be damaging to France.
The cat was well and truly out of the bag.
Intense diplomatic and media activity followed publication of the Le Monde report.
In Damascus the Syrian cabinet was called together for the third time in twenty-four hours, on this occasion primarilyto consider the situation in the light of the Le Monde report.
It was decided that no statement about the missing weapons should be made until the matter had been discussed fully with the French Government. The Minister of Defence was deputed to brief the Syrian Ambassador in Paris, and instruct him to call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Quai d’Orsay without delay.
There was long discussion by the Syrian Cabinet on the delicacy of the situation, observing that, although directed against Syrian military personnel and equipment, the Israeli operation had taken place on Lebanese not Syrian soil. It was finally agreed that the Lebanese Government should be asked to report the incident to the United Nations Organization and to lodge a strongly-worded protest against Israeli aggression.
Over the weekend of October 9th/10th there were urgent cabinet meetings in Paris, Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem. Notwithstanding intense pressure from the media none of the governments concerned was prepared to issue a statement. All enquiries were met with a firm ‘no comment’.
On Monday, October 11th, the Syrian Minister of Defence announced that part of a shipment of arms, ‘products of high technology with an exceptional potential for destruction’, had been interfered with by an Israeli commando unit while in transit to Syria. No mention was made of the place or date of the incident, the outcome of the ‘interference’, or where the arms had come from.
This guarded statement was soon overtaken by events for the next day the BBC evening news service in London carried a report that the target for the Israeli commando operation in Beirut harbour on the night of the 5th/6th October had been a consignment of tactical nuclear missiles supplied by France to the Syrian Government in terms of a secret agreement. It was understood that the Israelis had succeeded in seizingonly a small part of the consignment. Accounts of the incident , continued the BBC, were as yet confused and contradictory but it had been established that a number of Syrian army officers and at least one Israeli soldier had been killed.
The Israeli Government at once denied that it was in any way involved. It repudiated in advance any charge of aggression and challenged the Lebanese and Syrian Governments to furnish evidence in support of the allegations made.
On the following day The Times confirmed and amplified the BBC report. The missiles supplied by the French to the Syrians were, said the newspaper, France’s
Similar Books
