State of Israel

On this 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, we look back at The Post editorial board's reaction to Israel's declaration of independence, President Truman's speedy recognition and the violent response of neighboring Arab states.

The State of Israel

May 16, 1948

President Truman's haste in recognizing the de facto authority of the provisional government set up in the new Jewish state in Palestine caused temporary consternation in the United Nations General Assembly and surprise throughout the world. That reaction did not, however, reflect upon the good sense of the recognition itself. Diplomats were shocked because the United States so suddenly flip-flopped from a policy of confusion and indecision on Palestine to a positive act taken in unprecedented haste. Apparently, too, the United States' own representatives in the Assembly were utterly unprepared for this feat of recognizing the State of Israel 20 minutes after it came into being. Regardless of the merits of any particular action that is taken, this erratic manner of conducting our foreign policy costs the United States dearly in terms of prestige and world leadership.

There seems to be only one extenuating fact about the Administration's rather shocking series of somersaults in dealing with the Palestine issue. Since the General Assembly favored partitioning of the Holy Land last November, the Administration has been working on the problem solely through the U.N. No agreement could be reached in the Security Council on the creation of an international force, and each flimsy expedient that has since been proposed has failed to win U.N. support. In recognizing Israel, the United States acted wholly on its own responsibility, thus suggesting at least that the Administration is eager to close the chapter of future vacillation on the international front and meet the realities of the present in a decisive manner so far as that can be done within the realm of national action.

Senator Vandenberg hit the nail on the head when he said that the President's action "takes account of the reality that no other authority can fill what otherwise would be a cruel and dangerous vacuum in this area of Palestine." The Jewish state is an accomplished fact and the only alternative to anarchy. Its declaration of independence issued at Tel Aviv evidences a strong determination for survival, but also a promising restraint. Social and political equality are pledged to all citizens "without distinction of race, creed or sex." Peace and amity are offered to all neighboring states and people. And "the State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and reconstitution of the Middle East." That moderation is highly commendable, and we hope that it will be reflected in the actions of the new state no less than in its words.

Peace in the Near East is now unquestionably dependent upon the Arabs' sense of realities. It would be naive to ignore the clash of traditions and culture when the dynamic Jews develop a state alongside the Arabs' feudal civilization. But the new order can work to the advantage of both if there is the will to seek peaceful accommodation. To that objective the energy of all men of good will should now be devoted.

•

Threat to Peace

May 21, 1948

That we have not hitherto commented on the postpartition fighting in Palestine is due to the fact that we don't know what is going on. Nor do the newspaper correspondents on the spot. They are handicapped by propaganda, censorship, and the refusal of both sides to allow eyewitnesses to look at the conflict. But even if a view were vouchsafed, we doubt whether it would be illuminating....

It is important to bear in mind that all the members of the loose coalition known as the Arab League have similar ambitions. They are far more anxious to annex part of Arab Palestine than to pursue a holy war on Israel.... Is this competition for spoils agression?.... When partition was under discussion by the General Assembly, it was taken for granted, largely because of British policy, that the outside Arab states had rights in Palestine. The situation is now complicated by the fact that, thanks to do-nothingness at Lake Success, Arab Palestine is a vacuum.

The question of agression, then, is an open one, except in those places, the Jews in Arab Acre, the Egyptians in Israel's Tel Aviv, and the Iraqis in eastern Galilee, where the partition lines have been crossed. But beyond any doubt a very serious threat to peace exists. It is extraordinary that at Lake Success Britain's Sir Alexander Cadogan should deny such a patent reality. The United Nations is being held up to the same contempt which was visited upon the League of Nations in the case of Ethiopia. The only way it can restore its prestige in the Middle East is to issue a cease-fire order, dispatch at once an emissary of caliber, and slap sanctions onto the nation that refuses to obey.