Looking Over Jordan

With Communist arms pouring into the Middle East and Israel clamoring for aid to balance them, a critical situation has become precipitous. The United States must obviously take a strong stand in order to live up to her responsibilities as a world leader. There is some question, however, as to what this responsibility is. Recently, Israel's Ambassador Abba Eban stated that it was the "moral duty" of this country to send arms to Israel. Admitting that, as a member of the United Nations, we do have a duty to protect Israel from invasion, the arms solution is perhaps the worst that could be conceived.

Before taking any action the United States must define clearly what its moral responsibility is. Certainly, as a nation with democratic institutions Israel has strong claim to American sympathies. But this natural affinity must not lead the United States into grossly misstating its position. Both Israel and the Arab nations are members of the United Nations, and as such are entitled to equal protection. It would be foolish for this country to alienate the important Arab bloc under the illusion that we are committed to protection of Israel alone.

When the accounts are balanced, neither side comes out spotless. Each side has raided the other almost continuously since the partition in 1948; and while the Israelis have taken the initiative most often in recent months, the Arabs on their side have sworn a holy alliance to annihilate Israel. Each side has its justifications, the Arabs their million refugees, the Israelis a dream of centuries. In view of this, the United States can espouse neither cause at the expense of the other.

Sending arms to Israel is as ineffective a solution as it is foolishly partial. Given the Arab fervor--and the Communist willingness to exploit it with military aid--U.S. arms could only ignite an explosive arms race. Nor are such arms necessary for the preservation of the Israeli state. If Israel were ever subjected to a full-scale Arab attack, the same arms would be used by U.S. and U.N. forces in immediate action against the aggressor. By clearly stating that the present boundaries will be maintained, the U.S. will both forestall an arms race and protect Israel as a state.

To preserve its detachment, the United States must act through the United Nations, as President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Eden have indicated. Their recent statement, however, which was limited to stressing mediation, is not strong enough. Working through the United Nations must not mean merely maintaining observation posts. The United Nations should send troops to create a neutral zone, thereby preventing the retaliatory raids which each day furnish an excuse for all-out war.

United Nations intervention, however, must take a discreet form. For one thing, the troops should come largely from nations which would not appear to the Arabs as representative of Western colonialism. Members from the Asian bloc, such as the Philippines, would be convincing. The border guard need not be a large force, for its purpose would be to stop the small day-to-day aggressions.

The United Nations border guard plan has certain definite advantages: while protecting both sides from their own rabid attitudes, it commits none of the member nations to either side. But it is not enough, for even though the force would obviously represent world opinion, Arab resentment would still run strong. The Arabs might be placated, however, if the U.N. or the United States aided in relocating the Arab refugees, whose presence is one of the roots of Arab hostility.

Many look askance at the possibility of effective United Nations action. Perhaps the idea of the U.N. ever assuming an active responsibility is now an idle dream. There is, however, almost no other means of asserting our desire for peace convincingly or effectively. And even though a border guard could not arrange a lasting peace, it would at least halt the development of hostilities--calming the atmosphere and making rational consideration on both sides more possible.

CRIMSON editorial policy, as expressed in the above unsigned article, is determined by a majority vote of the Editors at weekly meetings. Although the Editorial Board assigns one editor to write the statements of policy, the views expressed are those of the newspaper as a whole. Signed feature articles appearing on this page are not policy statements and represent the personal opinions of the author.