THE DEBATE IN THE UNITED NATIONS (U.N.) SPARKED BY THE 1972 KILLINGS AT THE MUNICH OLYMPIC GAMES ACCENTUATED A SPLIT AMONG U.N. MEMBERS ON THE ISSUE OF TERRORISM. THE WESTERN STATES WANTED THE U.N. TO CONDEMN TERRORISM STRONGLY AND TO DRAFT NEW CONVENTIONS TO COMBAT IT. THE ARAB STATES, ALONG WITH THEIR THIRD WORLD AND SOCIALIST SUPPORTERS, SUGGESTED THAT MORE LIVES ARE LOST BY STATE TERRORISM THAN THROUGH INDIVIDUAL TERRORISM AND INSISTED THAT ONLY AFTER A STUDY OF CAUSES COULD MEASURES BE DISCUSSED AND ENACTED. VARIOUS U.N. AGENCIES HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DEFINE TERRORISM AND HAVE MET WITH DIFFICULTIES. ONE GROUP DID AGREE THAT THE FORCES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGAINST SOME FORMS OF TERRORISM COULD BE STRENGTHENED BY: (1)EXTENDING UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION TO SUCH CRIMES (AS IS THE CASE FOR AIR PIRACY); (2) STRENGTHENING THE OBSERVANCE OF EXTRADITION LAWS; AND (3) STRENGTHENING THE COOPERATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL POLICE ORGANIZATION (INTERPOL). A SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATE RESULTING FROM ISRAEL'S 1976 RESCUE OF HOSTAGES AT ENTEBBE BROUGHT OUT SOME OF THE DIFFICULT LEGAL PROBLEMS THE ORGANIZATION HAS ENCOUNTERED IN DISCUSSIONS ON TERRORISM. UGANDA AND OTHER NATIONS CITED U.N. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST AGGRESSION, AND ISRAEL QUOTED OTHER LAWS INDICATING THAT STATES HAVE INTERVENED TO PROTECT THEIR NATIONALS. THE OUTCOME OF THE DEBATE WAS NEGLIGIBLE; OF THE TWO RESOLUTIONS SUBMITTED, ONE CONDEMNING ISREAL WAS WITHDRAWN AND THE OTHER CONDEMENING TERRORISM WAS DEFEATED. IT HAD BEEN HOPED THAT THE SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATE WOULD BRING THE WORLD COMMUNITY OUT OF ITS STALEMATE REGARDING TERRORISM; INSTEAD, POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS PREVENTED DECISIVE ACTION. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE U.N.'S INABILITY TO ACT IS NOT ITS OWN FAULT: IT IS A REFLECTION OF THE DIVERGENCES OF INTERNATIONAL OPINION AMONG 144 STATES. THE U.N. SERVES PRIMARILY AS A FORUM WHERE ISSUES CAN BE VENTILATED, IF NOT SOLVED.