Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-07-11
Back to Nosser'


can aid to Nasser and adjust
ment Of our foreign policy
In this respect.
On June 80 there appeared
In the Cairo newspaper. AL
Ahram, mouthpiece for Mas
ser. an assertion by him that
he was determined to keep
the Suez Canal closed to Is
raeli cargoeS regardless of
consequences" That same
week an Egyptian war prize
court" confirmed the legality
Of the confiscation of an Is
raeli cargo taken by Egypt
from a Liberian ship in Feb
ruary. Now the Danish ship
1nge loft is tied up at a dock
at Port Said being denied
entrance to the Suez Canal
because its captain has re-
fused to unload his Israeli
cargo which the Egyptians
say they will confiscate.
When President Eisen-
hover urged the Israelis to
withdraw from Sinai on Feb
ruary 20, 1857. he promised:
I'VE should not assume
that, If Israel withdraws,
Egypt viii prevent Israeli
shipping from using the SueZ
Canal or the Gulf of Aqaba.
If, uphappily, Egypt does
hereafter violate the armi-
stice agreement or other in
ternational obligation, then
this should be dealt with
firmly by the society. Of ma
tons" .-..
Again, on March 3 1857,
the President treasured Prime
Minister David Ben Gurion:
Israel will have no cause
for regret having thus con-
formed to the strong Senti-
ment of the world community.
1t has always been the view
Of this Government that aft
er the withdrawal there
would be a united effort by
all the nations to bring about
conditions more stable, more
tranquil and more conducive
to the general welfare than
those which existed hereto
fore"
Since then no Israeli ships
have been allowed through
the Suez Canal, and in Febru-
airy Of this year UAR resumed
and extended its blockade
and conflscation Of Israeli
cargoes.
In the light of these state
mentS and assurances by our
Government, it is just short
of abusing the confidence of
the sovereign nation of Is
rael for the United States
and the United Nations to
sit back and do nothing ex-
cept appease the United Arab
Republic. Where does q ma
ton go when it cannot rely
on the promises made by a
friendly government, to de-
fend 1t from the attacks Of
other powers even though in
the form Of an illegal block
ade? 1t is, to say the least,
not pleasant to contemplate
the logical outcome of a stu
alton such as this.
Abe Shefferman.
X 4
Time has a way of blurring
the facts Of history, and your
editorial of July 4 on the
resumption of United States
aid to Nasser proves the point
in several instances. For ex-
ample, it is not true, as you
say, that when the United
States stepped out the Rus
slams stepped in" NasSer'S
arms deal with the Com
munists was announced in
September, 1855. The United
States aid program stopped
in 1856, after Nasser seized
the Suez Canal. 1t was sus-
pended, not discontinued. At
the time, the Soviet Union
had already made successful
inroads into Syria (now the
JAR northern region) which
had always rejected United
States aid. What reason,
therefore, have we to think
that byFesumption of our aid
program we can keep Nasser
away from the Kremlin?
After all, why should we help
a ruler who opened the
Middle East to the Commu-
nists, who has repeatedly
denounced our country and
its allies, and who seems de-
termined to continue his
policy Of playing West against
East for his own advantage?
Your editorial also errs in
describing Nasser as the
authentic leader" of IA