U.S. Newspapers Hope Israeli-egyptian Conflict Will Be Halted

The influential Washington Post and Times-Herald declared editorially today that “this country has an obligation, if the Israelis do not withdraw, to come to Egypt’s aid” but it expressed hope that “perhaps the eruption can be quelled without all the dire consequences.”

The editorial said that, “because of the innumerable Egyptian provocations to Israel and because of the justified apprehensions about Nasser, the invasion has caused mixed feelings in the United States. Perhaps what the Israeli act of desperation demonstrates most of all is the inadequacy of international measures to protect nations against indirect aggression of the sort sustained by Israel at Arab hands. It is hard to draw a moral; nevertheless, the military aggression undertaken by Israel constitutes a far graver and more immediate threat to world institution. International guarantees mean nothing unless they are invoked against aggression from each and every quarter.”

The New York Times warned editorially today that the Israel-Egypt conflict “is throwing into the explosive Middle Eastern cauldron not only the whole Arab-Israeli conflict but also the many other issues which have troubled that region and is bringing upon the scene not only the other Arab states, but also the larger powers, with their special and not always identical interests and views.”

The editorial voiced the hope that the Israeli-Egyptian conflict “can still be stopped in time and that the new shock it has sent throughout the world will give fresh impetus to efforts to establish a peace in the Middle East more solidly based than the precarious armistice agreements now prevailing in that troubled area.”

The New York Herald Tribune also stressed editorially the possible widespread repercussions of the Israel move into Egypt. It declared that despite the “unfortunate division of opinion among the Western Big Three, “it is still possible to work for a unified stand to restore peace; even after shooting has begun it is possible to achieve a cease-fire, and to secure diplomatic solutions through the UN.”

NOTED COLUMNISTS DEFEND ISRAEL; CRITICIZE U. S. POLICY IN MIDDLE EAST

The Wall Street Journal said today that “this military action of Israel threatens a Middle East war, the end of which no man could foresee. For Israel itself, it threatens not only the risks in war but something else that ought to be especially precious to it–the good will of the democratic nations of the West.”

The New York Journal American came out editorially today in full support of the Eisenhower-Dulles policy. It declared that the “American people should be thankful that President Eisenhower has risen above the timid political considerations of men of lesser stature and has refused to play election-year politics in guiding the nation’s policy in the Middle East on a resolute and reasoned course.”

The New York Post said today that “the Administration’s disastrous Middle Eastern policy has reached its moral and strategic dead end.” It declared that “America finds itself deprived of its historic allies and joined in unholy partnership with Russia to make Israel the scapegoat of the current crisis.”

A strong defense of the Israel action in invading Egypt was published today by David Lawrence, Washington editor, in his syndicated column. Mr. Lawrence, long a vigorous supporter of Administration policies, catalogued Arab acts of hostility against Israel and declared that “all in all, it’s more than a matter of who is or is not the aggressor. It’s a question of whether Israel, which depends for its life on shipments to and from the rest of the world, can be strangled by Egypt just because the latter has arbitrarily seized the Suez Canal. Israel’s decision to wipe out military units inside Egypt that threaten her territory from points near the border is much more a case of self-defense than it is an act of aggression.”

In their syndicated Washington column, the Alsop Brothers bluntly labelled American policy in the Middle East “a dismal and desperate failure.” They declared that “thanks to the Dulles delaying tactics, there has never been a time since the war when this country’s relations with its two major allies, Britain and France were nearer the breaking point. Altogether, the failure of our Middle Eastern policy is about as complete as it is possible to imagine.”