The United States policy in the Middle East was praised and also criticized today in the House of Representatives in a debate which developed after Rep. Alvin M, Bentley, an important Republican member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, assailed the British-French-Israel action last year in the Suez Peninsula and hailed the proposed federation of Egypt and Syria.
Lauding Secretary of State John Foster Dulles for his Middle East program, Rep. Bentley said that the British-French-Israeli action “was in violation of both international morality and justice.” He expressed the opinion that the Dulles’ policies had been such that the Soviet Union had gained advantage in only two countries–Egypt and Syria. “Even in these two countries,” he said, “there are positive and encouraging signs that the moderate elements are beginning a program of resistance to further Communist gains.”
It was his own personal view, he said, that the new union of Egypt and Syria “will go far to keep both Syria and Egypt from further Communist infiltration and Communist domination, by permitting them to operate under one government. ” He said he thought it was another question as whether it was a good thing for the entire Middle East, but that “It will be a real deterrent to further Communist penetration of this area.”
House Majority Leader John W. McCormack, Massachusetts Democrat, noted that Rep. Bentley “rather severely criticized our allies, Britain, France, and Israel.” Rep. McCormack said he thought these three countries did right by moving against Egypt. “I am sorry they were not successful, because we would then have been able to negotiate from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness, “he said, I think we made a mistake in being on the side of the Soviet Union In connection with condemning Britain, France, and Israel.”
“Even if our government did not agree with what they did, ” he continued, “the relation of friendship ought to have prompted our government to at least remain silent rather than going out and publicly repudiating three nations that are friendly to us. “
Rep. James Roosevelt, California Democrat, questioned U. S. policy toward Israel, “We wondered where our country was at the time Egypt was building up on the Sinai Desert a large accumulation” of Soviet weapons and Russian-trained soldiers to be used “in an aggressive campaign against Israel, ” he said, There seemed to be no comment from the U. S. at that time, although we were not slow to join In condemning measures taken by Israel in defense against those conducting fedayeen raids against Israel, he pointed out.
Rep. Roosevelt also assailed the policy of Secretary Dulles of accepting from the King of Saudi Arabia conditions barring U.S. armed service personnel of the Jewish faith from serving at an airbase leased by the United States in Saudi Arabia. He said it violated “every moral principle.”
Rep. Roosevelt attacked a recent statement by State Department official Edward M, J, Kretzmann that “the official United States attitude toward the Arab-Israel dispute is one of sympathetic impartiality, which means we are neutral. ” Referring to a grant of arms by the United States to certain Arab states while denying arms aid to Israel, Rep. Roosevelt questioned whether the United States was Indeed neutral.
Rep. George S. McGovern, South Dakota Democrat, arose to endorse Rep. Roosevelt’s views as to the necessity of increasing economic assistance to the Middle East “and perhaps scaling down some of the military assistance that we have been sending to that part of the world. ” Referring to the U.S. arming of the Arabs, he suggested that it was “unrealistic to talk about building a framework of military strength on a foundation of disease, ignorance, and poverty.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
