The British Government continues to hold by the Eden plan for settling the Arab-Israel conflict by territorial concessions on the part of the State of Israel, Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd made clear today during a foreign policy debate in Commons.
Replying to a demand voiced yesterday by Labor Party leader Hugh Gaitskell that the Western Big Three and the USSR undertake to guarantee the borders of Israel. Mr. Lloyd said: “Our position today is a settlement as suggested by Sir Anthony Eden in his Guildhall speech.” Sir Anthony’s proposals, made 18 months ago while he was still Prime Minister, met with a wall of opposition in Israel and at home among both the Opposition and some Conservative MP’s.
Any such guarantee of Israel’s borders as the Laborites ask, Mr. Lloyd said, would be bitterly resented by all of Israel’s Arab neighbors.
Aneurin Bevan, member of the Labor Party’s “shadow cabinet,” intervened to characterize Mr. Lloyd’s statement “extremely serious.” He asked if this demand might involve a substantial loss of Israel territory or only rectification of frontier anomalies. He termed any demand for substantial concessions “highly dangerous.” Mr. Gaitskell also intervened to make a point about the “great difference” between mutually agreed frontier changes and substantial territorial changes.
The Foreign Secretary pointed out that he had not used the word “substantial” but said that since he thought it was the desire of all parties to convert the armistice agreements to a peace settlement and that must be done through negotiations involving compromise on both sides.
“There are several elements in any settlement–frontiers, refugees, Jordan borders, access and other problems–and the more one party gives on one issue the less it should be expected to give on another,” the Foreign Secretary said. The Eden statement, he went on, made clear that it was a matter of negotiation and compromise.
Mr. Gaitskell scored the Government for adhering to the Eden plan, asserting that he found it “astonishing” that the government could still espouse the 18-month-old proposal which, he pointed out, is “out of the question for Israel to accept.” He said British reiteration of the Eden proposal could only harm the present situation by giving the Arab states the false hope that such a settlement could still be obtained.
He also called for an arms embargo or at least partial control of the flow of weapons into the Middle East as” one thing which can be done. ” Commenting on the two recent Arab mergers, Mr. Gaitskell expressed the hope that: they would not lead to excessive nationalism nor aggression, that they would speed the economic development of the area and bring nearer a solution of the vexatious problem of the Arab refugees.
J. Stonehouse, another Laborite, attacked the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, asserting they would be received with dismay and disgust and that “rather than adding to the stability of the Middle East area they will help add fuel to the fire of suspicion.”
Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd, replying to a question by a Laborite, expressed the government’s hope that something of a permanent nature will develop from the United Nations Emergency Force now stationed on the Israel-Gaza Strip border. However, he said the government would like to await a report from UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold on the matter before making any further statement.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
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.
