To the Editor:
Mr. Hal Lehrman’s article “American Policy and Arab-Israeli Peace” (June 1954) contains much revealing information on the attitudes of the government and army of Israel, as well as on the disunity which, until recent months, has reigned in the Arab League nations. In evaluating U.S. strategic interests in the area, however, the article creates some impressions quite contrary to the facts. . . .
In claiming that Israel is “the one element of stability” in the Near East and the most useful ally of the U.S., Mr. Lehrman disregards the following facts painfully apparent to Americans living in the area.
- Israel and Syria are the only Near East nations in which the Communist party operates legally and holds seats in parliament.
- Though founded with U.S. aid and supposed to be an ally, Israel sent not even a platoon to Korea, permits no Western military or air base on its soil, as do Arab Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Libya. Israel recently concluded an agreement with the USSR promising never to join any anti-Russian bloc! If an Arab nation did this, what a howl would go up in our press!
- As Mr. Lehrman admits, Israel is not viable and the Arab states are viable. He may deplore the Arab standard of living, but that surely is for the Arabs to accept, if they so wish, as a price for independence. With current moves to unify their economy and to invest locally their vast income from oil, the Arab states will soon be strong through their own resources, without calling on the U.S. taxpayer. An American would suppose that this is a consummation devoutly wished by all friends of the U.S.A.
- Israel continues to flout the UN by trying to move her capital to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not in Israel at all; it is UN territory. Every act of the UN has reaffirmed that “nothing shall be done to prejudice the international character of greater Jerusalem,” whose future status the UN is charged with determining. In the meantime, under the Armistice, the armies of Israel and Jordan quite properly police the respective zones of the city.
- Israel’s denunciations of the Suez settlement are astonishing from a nation described by Mr. Lehrman as a firm ally of the U.S.A.
- We read much of Israel’s protest against Egypt’s seizure of the “Bat Galim”; but Zionists fail to mention that Israel seizes every Arab ship in its territorial waters and shoots down every civilian Arab plane which strays over its land.
- Mr. Lehrman alternately stresses Israel’s might, and her vulnerability. On one page we read that she could take Old Jerusalem, the Triangle, the Litani Waters, and Damascus whenever she wishes; on the next page we read that without the shield of British troops in Egypt, and the denial of arms to Iraq, Israel is pitiable and helpless. He should make up his mind. Keeping 40 million Arabs, who live between Israel and our potential enemy, poor, fragmented, and unarmed, is quite a price to ask the U.S.A. to pay for Israel’s gratitude. A glance at the map will show any child how useless Israel alone would be to us in another war, if the Arabs are neutral or on the enemy’s side.
I have no doubt that (barring Three Power intervention) Israel’s army could tomorrow occupy Amman, Beirut, and Damascus, and triple the perimeter of hate on her borders as well as the number of refugees to be fed. Let us all concede at once that Israel has a tough fighting force, but Israel is so situated that it can strike only against potential Arab friends, not at our chief enemy.
Does a look at these facts permit Mr. Lehrman really to believe that Israel is “our one element of stability” either in the Near East or in the U.S.A. itself?
William A. Eddy
Colonel, U.S.M.C. (Ret.)
Beirut, Lebanon
_____________
Mr. Lehrman writes:
Colonel Eddy’s arguments are based on “facts” that call for some correction:
—Israel indeed has Communists in its parliament—seven out of 120 members (less than 6 per cent)—and it also has a democratic parliament, the only one in the Near East. A main strength of the illegal Communist movements in the Arab states lies in the fact that virtually no democratic parties exist there to express the aspirations of their people. . . .
—Israel sent food and medical supplies to the UN forces in Korea; she kept her troops home because of the Arab threat. Israel voted with the U.S. against the Communist aggression; the Arabs sent neither platoons nor anything else, and straddled on the vote.
—Has the West ever asked Israel for bases? Has Israel ever refused? No. Shall we blame Israel for not compelling the West to march in?
—Israel has no agreement with the USSR about “never joining any anti-Russian bloc.” Israel has pledged herself not to commit aggression against anybody. So has the U.S. Israel has signed multi-national pacts, such as the UN Charter, to which the USSR also is a signatory. So is the U.S. Israel does have a major pact of mutual friendship—with the U.S. . . .
—Is there anything to support Colonel Eddy’s easy assurances that “current moves” will “soon” render Arab society healthy? Does he seriously think the poverty and disease of the Arab peoples are proofs of “independence”?
—There is no active UN policy in Jerusalem, and certainly none which puts Jerusalem in “UN territory.” If Israel is now “flouting” an old UN ruling, it is because that ruling, flouted by others from the start, has been judged archaic and meaningless by all—except several of the Arab governments.
—The U.S. is not a party to the Suez settlement. Nor has Israel denounced the settlement. . . . Israel has urged that the Canal’s passage into Egyptian control should not lead to a diminution in its character as an international waterway.
—Israel does not shoot down Arab planes. When they infringe her borders they are sometimes required to land, they are inspected—and released. As for ships, Israel operates under Armistice regulations concerning vessels in Israeli or Arab waters. The conduct of both sides under these regulations has occasionally been disputed. But Israel has not detained ships and cargoes indefinitely, or kept crews in jail, as has Egypt. Moreover, the “Bat Galim” was passing through international waters.
—Perhaps Colonel Eddy should “make up his mind.” If Israel is so formidable, and the Arabs “poor, fragmented, and unarmed” (certainly not because the U.S. “keeps” them so), where should the U.S. look for a center of stability? In the opinion of this writer, the proper safeguarding of the American national interest requires peace in the Near East. No reasonable observer will insist that the Arab case is all black, the Israeli case all white—or vice versa. But peace can scarcely be achieved by granting weapons to one side and setting off an arms race. Peace may be brought nearer by economic and technical assistance to all, in the degree and amount which each is capable of usefully absorbing for peaceful purposes.
_____________