Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-02-12
Sanctions and Israeli

WIN ~ WI
Unless I mistake your edi-
torial of February Z. Sane
tons and Israel" your argu-
ment comes to this: That since
the United Nations failed
to impose sanctions against
Russia for its utterly immoral
and unjustif1able action in
Hungary because Russia is
strong enough to be un-
disturbed by sanctions, it fol-
lows that because Israel is
weak enough to be seriously
hurt by them. the U. N.
should not fail to impose
sanctions against her for her
thoroughly moral and justi-
fable action in refusing to
withdraw from the GAIA and
Aqaba areas without guar
antees that Egypt will not
resume its belligerency there.
This, 1t is plain. is the spe-
cious non sequitur on the basis
Of which you justify the
abandonment of elementary
justice and morality" and
principle" to the hard real
tiles" and stubborn practi-
calities" Of International lie
and in connection, mind
you. With a proposed U. N.
resolution which. as you know.
is not legally binding but de-
ponds for its observance upon
its moral force!
1t is perhaps ungentle to
remind you that. Russia aside,
Egypt herself has for some six
years now been in open and
notorious defiance of a 1851
decision of the U. N. Security
Council that Israeli ships
should be permitted to pass
through the Suez Canal: that
unlike General Assembly
resolution. which is merely a
recommendation backed by
moral force. such a Security
Council decision is legally
binding; and that not only
by every test of justice. moral
ity and principle. but even by
your touchstone of hard real
ity and practically. Egypt
would have been even more
vulnerable to sanctions than
Israel during these six years.
Yet sanctions were never i'm
posed by the U. N. nor, to my
knowledge. ever advocated by
your newspaper. Nor were
you moved to such advocacy.
or the U. N. to such action,
by further Egyptian belliger-
ency in denying Israel navi-
cation Of the Gulf Of Aqaba
and in sending murderous
bands across Israels borders
established by a u. N.-nego-
tiated armistice agreement,
which 1t is now widely
conceded constituted serious
threats to the peace and
provoked Israel's action of
October 20 against Egypt.
Was 1t hard reality" that
led the United States and the
U. N. to acquiesce without
sanctions in Nasser's defiance
of the Security Council by
refusing Israeli ships passage
through the Suez Canal Ger
tainly it was neither justice.
morality nor principle. Is it
too much to suggest that per-
haps the success of that de-
f1ance encouraged the Egyp-
tan dictator to seize the canal
last year? Certainly that
would be the memorable logic
OF stubborn practically"
Does not the same logic COM
mend the Soviet action in
Hungary? Does the end Justify
the means? For myself and
for my country. ! had rather
stand with principle and
justice. Any other course is
hardly realistic.
Sanford II. BolZ.
4
Your editorial. Sanctions
and Israel" grudgingly con-
cedes that There is a certain
amount OF logic in Senator
Knowland's assertion that the
United Nations would be doing
an immoral and 'insupporta-
BILE thing If 1t voted for sane
tons against Israel without
also voting for sanctions
against the Soviet Union
But you then appeal to the
hard realities of our world"
and "the stubborn practicali-
ties Of international life"
We are thus to ignore "a
matter of elementary justice
and morality" for what some
one deems to be realistic and
eXpedient. Let us consider We
arc to reject what is valid" in
terms Of pure principle" Pre-
sumably, then, we are TO adopt
impure principles The redun-
dant is validated by the ridicu-
lousl
We need not debate the ex-
tent to which the Soviet Union
would be- disturbed by dinlo-