1968_4_arabisraelwar
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
UNITED STATES AND UNITED NATIONS / 153<br />
ings were to discuss cultivation arrangements in the contested demilitarized<br />
zones; they were broken off without progress after several sessions of procedural<br />
wrangling (p. 116).<br />
On February 5 the Arab "campaign of terror" against Israel was called<br />
"morally reprehensible, politically irresponsible and a primary cause for the<br />
recently increased tensions on Israel's borders" by Rodger P. Davies, the<br />
deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs.<br />
Although Washington understood Israel's desire "to protect its citizens against<br />
murderous assault," he added, the United States would continue to oppose<br />
military retaliation. Davies said that the United States was determined to<br />
maintain good relations with all states in the region, to use its "power and<br />
influence" to prevent or contain conflict, and to "reinforce trends toward<br />
reconciliation." He emphasized that this policy of "even-handedness" did not<br />
mean the "abandonment of principle, and a moral judgement must enter<br />
into decision-making on a case-by-case basis." The United States, he said,<br />
took "a forthright position against aggression by either side."<br />
Criticism of American Policy and State Department Response<br />
The practical results of this policy of even-handedness aroused considerable<br />
criticism in Congress. In January Senator Jacob K. Javits (Rep., N.Y.),<br />
described the American effort to conciliate all states of the region as a dangerous<br />
"juggling act—an act of balancing that cannot withstand the tests of<br />
time and tension." He described as unrealistic expectations that the United<br />
Nations would effectively deal with the Arab-Israel dispute in light of the<br />
Soviet Union's consistently pro-Arab bias and American policy of evenhandedness.<br />
This situation served rather to encourage provocations by the Syrians and<br />
other extremist elements, who were likely to feel secure in the knowledge<br />
that the Soviet Union would paralyze any action by the Security Council<br />
against them. At the same time, Javits continued, they might conclude that<br />
United States readiness to condemn Israeli retaliation and the possibility of<br />
UN sanctions in the event of another massive Israeli counterattack, would<br />
restrain Israel from future retaliation. This situation, he felt, made it imperative<br />
for the United States to adopt a more active Middle East policy, one<br />
that would "sort out our friends and our foes, and concentrate our aid on<br />
those who are our friends."<br />
In an exchange of letters with Secretary of State Dean Rusk, the New York<br />
Republican elaborated on the theme that the firmness of the commitment of<br />
the United States and its Western allies to preserve peace in the Middle East<br />
had been placed in doubt by recent events, among them the rapid decline of<br />
British power in the area and the determination of Gaullist France to play<br />
a lone hand in international relations. Javits said that "the best vehicle for<br />
stability and Western cooperation in the Middle East" had been the Tripartite<br />
Declaration of May 1950 in which Britain and France had joined with