Arab reiugees in the Gaza Strip

- © How can it he solved ?

Crisis in the

Middle East

RAB - Israeli relationships
remain in a state of con-
tinuing crisis. Since November
the actions of the United Na-
tions and the United States
have not gone beyond the
problem of establishing a mo-
mentary peace on the Egyp-
tian-Israeli borders. The basic
causes of conflict remain, What
are these causes? What con-
tributions toward peace can be
made by enlightened public
opinion?

The first step towards clar-
ity lies in distinguishing two
areas of discussion; that. of
specific Arab-Iraeli relation-
ships, and that of general
East-West relationships. Fail-
ure to reckon: with ‘both the
general and the specific mars
much of the discussion today.

The history of Arab-Israeli
relationships reveals a poten-
tially favorable future, despite
the bitterness of recent years.
In the period following the
First World War the Arab peo-
ple. for the most part accepted
the permanence of Jewish set-
tlement, and the Jewish recon-
ciled themselves to the loss

By DR. SANFORD GOLDNER

of Transjordan, which Britain
partitioned off from Palestine.

There were clashes, but the
real cause wasn’t Arab-Jewish
animosity, but British colonial-
ism, as the Palestine Royal
Commission reports themselves
acknowledged.

By the Second World War
an incteasing number of Jews
(about 600,000) and a larger
and increasing number of
Arabs (more than one million),
lived in harmonious daily re-
lationships in the villages, on
the farms, and in industrial
occupations. In 1946 and 1947
Jewish and Arab workers en-

gaged in joint office, the pub-

lic works department, the
government-owned railways.

The worsening of relation-
ships in the years since, can-

not be viewed simply in terms -

of specific Arab actions to-
wards Jews or vice versa. Here
the role of the Middle East in
world politics becomes deci-
sive.

First in historic order was
Britain’s aim of consolidating
its road to empire by securing

the areas adjacent to the Suez
Canal, Second was the import-
ance of oil and the fact that
50-60 per cent of the world’s
oil resources lie in this area.
Third was the emergence of
a post-war world split into two
blocs.

A footnote also must be
added concerning British-U.S.

An Israeli

contradictions. The U.S. has
attempted and partially suc-
ceeded in displacing Britain in
the area. This, however, leaves
essentially undisturbed the
larger aims of Western policy,
which have an important bear-
ing on the reluctance of the
Western power to recognize
Egyptian control of the Suez
Canal.

Neglect of the real problems,
coupled with what The London
Times called the West’s con-
cern “to keep an uneasy bal-
ance between Israel and the
Arabs,” has kept the area in
a state of permanent crisis.
This was intensified by the at-
tempt of the U.S., with Britain
as the front, to form the Bagh-
dad Pact. Designed to win the
Arab states, it won only Iraq.
Moreover, it crystallized the
rising nationalism of Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon,
Jordan, Yemen and the Sudan.

Israel, meanwhile, had aban-
doned the neutralism of the
first few months of her exis-
tence, -and openly identified
herself with the interests of the
West. From this act have fol-

lowed certain military, eco-
nomic and _ political conse-
quences.

Tensions between Israel and
the Arab states increased. Is-
rael reduced her trade with
Eastern Europe and the Soviet
Union to a negligible point.
Israel joined with the West
in opposing the Asian-African.
attempt to place the matters of
racialism in South Africa and
colonialism- in North Africa
on the United Nations’ agenda.
Finally, Israel paved the way
for the Anglo-French invasion
of Egypt. In the aftermath she
has found herself isolated from
the Arab world, from: the East
and from the West.

Events have made clear that
there will be no solution of
direct Arab-Israel problems
without agreement among the
Big Four. This means the neu-
tralizing of the Middle East
with respect to the East-West
controversy.

All the Arab powers except
Iraq are in or moving towards
the neutralist camp, in accord

soldier watches the Israeli-Egyptian border
APRIL 5, 1957 — PACIFIC TRIBUNE—PAGE ll

with the spirit of the Bandung
Conference. The facts of life,
the absence of any other real
alternative, would, it seems to
this writer, lead Israel increas-
ingly towards neutralism in
the days ahead.

Such conclusions, however,
should not lead to simplified
judgements with respect to
direct Arab-Israel relation-
ships. Some persons, looking
only at Israel’s alignment with
the West, give no thoughts to
the raids on Jewish border
settlements, or to the continued

violation by Egypt of the UN’s |

1951 decision requesting Egypt
to open the Suez Canal to Is-
raeli shipping.

Any settlement must solve
these problems and guarantee
Israel’s right to existence. Such
settlement, on the other hand,
must include Israel’s agree-
ment to a solution of the prob-
lem of Arab refugees and an

end to the “‘pass,” “curfew” and §

residence restrictions on Arabs
living within the borders of
Israel.

Failure to include, both the ©
general and the specific leads, ©
on the one hand, to reactions §
of those who heap sole blame ©

on Nasser and the Arab lead-
ers; and on the other hand, to

reactions of those who see only |

the historically progressive role
of the rising national libera-
tion movement but fail to note
its contradictions and anti-
Israel character. ‘

The Eisenhower Doctrine is
simply a more naked extension
of a policy which has already
proved bankrupt: Enlightened
public opinion should be
brought to bear to make the
Middle East a subject for top-
level settlement among the Big
Four.

Without a resolute settle-
ment of East-West differences
with respect to the Middle East.
Israeli-Arab relations will re-

main in a state of crisis and

turmoil. With such a resolution,
the Arab and Israeli people can.
return
friendship. They can then de-

vote themselves to those mat-_

ters of economic and social
upbuilding which are ultimate-

ly in the highest interest of

both peoples.

to the highroad of

—_
ee