Israel's Retaliation Of Attacks Justified (How the great late Edgar Ansel Mowrer rebuked the United Nations condemnation of "excessive force" in 1966)

The Norwalk Hour ^ | Dec 5, 1966 | Edgar Ansel Mowrer

[Milagros]

On World Affairs. By FDGAR ANSEL MOWRE —
Israel's Retaliation Of Attacks Justfied.
The United Nations' categorical condemnation of Israel's reprisal raid on neighboring Jordan indicates a very peculiar sense of justice in those members of the Security Council who voted it. The Security Council revealed itself as hypocritical, masking the nationalistic or cowardly policies of its members behind a cloud of moral bombast.
Strong words?
Consider the facts of the situation, which many readers may have forgotten. Israel was started by the Balfour Declaration of a "Jewish Homeland in Palestine" of 1917 — which Pres. Wilson wholeheartedly supported. As a result more and more Jews flocked to that country, which the victors of WW I took from Turkey and made a British mandate During WW II, the pro-Nazi attitude of nearly all Arabs, and particularly of the Mufti of Jerusalem.. strengthened the world's sympathy with the idea of a Jewish state in the country that had been Jewish long before anyone heard of Arabs.
Hostility Grew...

[Milagros]

After that war, hostility beween Palestinian Jews and Arabs, grew until Britain announced its intention of relinquishing the mandate and asked the United Nations for a solution.

In 1947 the UN recommended the partition of Palestine. The Arabs refused and attacked the Jews. The latter proved the stronger and most of the Arabs fled to neighboring countries. Whereupon five neighboring Arab countries sent armed forces into Palestine. In spit of UN efforts to secure peace by dividing the counry, fighting continued until the end of 1948 by which time the Jews occupied the territory which became the state of Israel. The Arab governments withdrew their troops but announced that they intended to spare no effort to eliminate Israel and massacre its Jewish inhabitants.

For years the Arab governments, chiefly Egypt, sent organized terrorists into Israeli territory. Israel carried out limited reprisals, In 1956, weary of Arab terrorists, Israel launched a military campaign against Egypt, destroyed one Egyptian army and would have taken the Suez Canal but for America's insistence on peace. In defiance of the peace terms, Egypt continued to refuse Israelis shipping access to the Suez Canal, which Nasser had appropriated. The Arab states continued to affirm their undying intention of destroying Israel. In recent months, Syria launched a new wave of terrorists into Israel and occasionally fired across the border. Some of these raids were lanched from Jordan, ...

Israel's retaliation was clearly justified by Art. 51 of the Charter:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations."...

Instead of rebuking the original aggressor, the Council condemned Israel's retaliation as "excessive." How much retaliation for international aggression Is "excessive"?

The charter says nothing about this. Each nation remains free to judge for itself, Clearly, then, the Council's unilateral condemnation of Israel for daring to defend itself is an act of blatent injustice American participation in it is inexcusable.

And unless I am mistaken, it will encourage the Arabs to renew their terrorism against Israel and the Israelis to react by means of their own choosing — precisely as former Secretary of State Dulles stated that the United States would do.

[Freeleesy]

Saved for reading later.