Israel Parliament Approves Adherence to the Eisenhower Doctrine

The Israel Parliament voted approval today of the Cabinet’s policy of adherence to the Eisenhower Doctrine. The vote was 59 to 5, with 39 abstentions. The five opposing votes came from the Communist deputies. Those who abstained included deputies of the right-wing Herut Party, the centrist General Zionists and the two left-wing groups Achdut Avodah and Mapam.

The abstention of the last two groups means that a crisis in the coalition cabinet was averted. The Achdut Avodah and the Mapam are represented in the cabinet and their abstentions are a victory for Premier David Ben Gurion who has been attempting to prevent them from voting against adhering to the Eisenhower Doctrine. A Communist motion to reject Israel’s adherence with the Eisenhower Doctrine was turned down by a vote of 100 to five.

Premier Ben Gurion opened the six-hour debate by bluntly stating that Israel, more than any other state in the Middle East, faces the danger of aggression and must accept any assistance against an aggressor if she wishes to live. The United States undertaking, as expressed in the Eisenhower Doctrine, to aid any victims of attack must be considered a step which strengthens both peace in the Middle East and the security of Israel, the Premier insisted.

He pointed out that in its statement adhering to the principles of the Doctrine, the Israel Government made clear opposition to aggression regardless of its source or its object. Israel, Mr. Ben Gurion continued, will continue to foster friendly relations and mutual assistance with every peace-loving state without inquiring into its internal regime and without violating the interests of any other people.

He stressed that identification with the Eisenhower Doctrine was consistent with Israel’s foreign policy, which he defined as motivated by: an “earnest desire to strengthen peace throughout the world and in particularly the Middle East; the requirements of Israel security, immigration, development and political and economic independence; the position and needs of the Jewish people scattered throughout the world, and fidelity to international cooperation and the principles of the United Nations Charter.”

BEN GURION CITES DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND ARAB ADHERENCE

Mr. Ben Gurion carefully underlined the fact that Israel’s declaration placing it alongside the United States was different, in two respects, from similar statements by other Middle East nations: Israel’s opposition to aggression from any quarter, and its refusal to denounce any other country. Explaining the omission of a blast at the Soviet Union and Communism, denounced in the Eisenhower Doctrine, he said: “we don’t see any need or indeed feel we have the right to interfere in the internal regime of any other country.”

The Premier placed great emphasis on the Congressional Resolution of March 9 which authorized President Eisenhower to extend economic and military aid and which indicated United States readiness to fight any attack on a Middle East state by a country controlled by Communism.

In a background analysis of the situation in which Israel agreed to join the U.S. in its Middle East policy, Mr. Ben Gurion noted that while the danger of Arab attack from without had been pinched off by the Sinai operation, hostile designs and acts of aggression against the Jewish State had not yet been abandoned. He recorded “with regret” that “mighty world forces” were continuing to slander Israel and supply her enemies with military assistance.

SAYS EISENHOWER DOCTRINE CAN HELP PREVENT WAR AGAINST ISRAEL

In the course of a heated debate, the Premier admitted that the doctrine was not an absolute guarantee of Israel’s security in the event of war, but said it was a factor helping prevent war. As a result of Israel’s acceptance of the U. S. policy, he declared, the Jewish State was now stronger in relation to the Arab states and the USSR, “since Russia is quite realistic and able to differentiate between a country which has been abandoned by the United States and one which receives its support.”

Replying to the opposition, Premier Ben Gurion said Israel cannot remain neutral toward a country where the Jews have no freedom of expression and no human and Jewish rights. He conceded that the Israel statement accepting the principles of the doctrine was adapted to meet the needs of the coalition and that changes in its wording had been made to “keep peace in the family.” But, he emphasized, it was a policy for which the government parties were responsible, even those which abstained in the vote.

LEFT-WING GROUPS EMPHASIZE THEY DON’T WANT CABINET CRISIS

The first sign that the coalition would not be disrupted came when Achdut Avodah leader Yitzhak Galili told the House that while his party could not join in supporting the Eisenhower Doctrine, neither would its deputies “raise their hands to fell a workers’ government.” Mr. Galili criticized both the United States and the USSR for increasing Middle East tension and for following a basically pro-Arab policy. He specifically scored the Soviet Union for spreading lies about Israel and cutting the ties between Soviet and world Jewry.

The final black cloud was dispelled when Mapam deputy Jacob Hazan said his group would indicate its opposition to the U.S. policy by abstaining. He explained that the Mapam feels the enormous tasks of immigration require the Mapam’s presence in the Cabinet. He also struck out at both the U.S. and the Soviets, sharply condemning Moscow opposition to Israel’s use of the Suez Canal.

General Zionist leaders spoke favorably of Israel’s adherence to the American line.

Poale Agudist Benjamin Mintz supported the government as a “matter of common sense” noting that the U.S. had consistently supported Israel while the Soviet Union had taken the opposite tack. He reminded the leftists that without U.S. aid even Mapam and Achdut Avodah kibbutzim could not have been raised to their present levels and that in the USSR “neither a united or a disunited Jewish appeal” was permitted.

Both Menahem Beigin and deputies of the United Religious Front (Mizrachi and Labor Mizrachi) felt that Mr. Ben Gurion’s policy of avoiding a sharp criticism of international Communism had cost Israel the fullest support of the United States. At the same time, Mr. Beigin asserted that the U.S. Congressional resolution offering to aid countries in the Middle East under attack from Communism was “watered down” and “replete with ifs.”