APPEAL BY UNITED STATES

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 69, Issue 77, 11 January 1949, Page 3

APPEAL BY UNITED STATES

Shooting Down of Planes NOT ENLARGING DISPUTE (N.Z.P. A—Copyright) (Rec. 10 a.m.) LONDON, Jan 10. The United States to-day, in what constituted an implicit appeal to Britain and Israel, expressed confidence that the shooting down of five Royal Air Force planes by Israeli fighters “will be considered a regrettable incident only and will not interfere with the truce negotiations on Rhodes.’’ >

The announcement also said that the United States “has been given to understand that if there are any Israeli troops still in Egypt they are in process of being withdrawn.”

The announcement was made in Washington by the State Department and information supplied by American officials there indicated that the Department was concentrating all its efforts on persuading both Britain and Israel not to enlarge the air clash incident to a point where it would doom the success of talks on Rhodes. These American officials disclosed that in making their first aproach to Israel regarding her incursions across the Egyptian frontier a fortnight ago they had feared that some incident might occur to dash the hopes of a cease-fire and successful truce.

The State Department spokesman (Mr Michael McDermott) denied reports ' that Britain was - urging the United States to “take a stand” against Israel on the incident.

The State Department confirmed that Sir Oliver Pranks (British ambassador) gave an advance notice to Mr Robert Lovett (acting-Secretary of State) of Britain’s intention to send troops to Akaba, in Transjordan. Meanwhile the British Consul-Gen-eral at Haifa made a second attempt to deliver Britain’s. Note of protest on the shooting down of British planes, but the Israeli authorities again rejected it. The Associated Press correspondent at Tel-Aviv says that the Note was not accepted because it did not refer to the “Israeli Government.” An Israeli Foreign Office spokesman said: “We are not pedantic or quibbling. We take the British plane incident seriously, but the political form of the British communication involves the question of recognition.” A Jewish. Government spokesman to-day denied reports that the Russian Minister (Yershov) had offered aid or support to Israel, says the British United Press correspondent at Tel-Aviv. The spokesman said that Yershov dis> cussed routine matters only in his visit to the Israeli Foreign Office.

JEWISH TROOPS WITHDRAWN ALONG THE EGYPTIAN FRONTIER (Rec. 10.50 a.m.) LONDON, Jan. 10. An official Jewish statement issued at Tel 'Aviv declares that all Jewish troops have been withdrawn from Egyptian territory, including some who had held positions two miles inside the frontier since the time of the cease-fire.

“IMMENSE DANGER” IN CRISIS

BRITISH AND AMERICAN INTERESTS

LONDON, January 10,

“An immense clanger to the whole British-American strategic position in the Middle East still hovers in the deserts of Southern Palestine,” says the “Economist.” “What happens if, overstepping the bounds of political prudence and too lightly interpreting their orders the Jewish military forces continue to infringe foreign frontiers? “Though neither Egypt nor Transjordan has so far invoked treaty aid from Great Brtiain in repelling the incursions, what would-happen if either were to do so?” asked the “Economist.” [The article was printed before the disclosure that Transjordan had, in fact, invoked the treaty with Britain, and that a British force was to be sent to Akaba.] “The last thing the British wish is to be called upon to fight the Israelis,” continues the “Economist.” “Yet for Britain to refuse to implement ther treaties with Egypt and Transjordan if called upon would be to invite a reciprocal refusal later to observe other clauses in the same treaties, notably those agreeing to the keeping of British troops in the Suez Canal Zone, and British aircraft on two useful fields in Transjordan.

Greece, Turkey, and Oil

“In a word, if Israel were to provoke either Egypt or Transjordan into calling for British help, and if Britain were to refuse to listen, what would become of British and American commitments in the Eastern Mediterranean, of aid to Greece and Turkey, and of the careful British-American defence line that buttresses the oil wells of the Middle East?” asks the “Economist.” It i>* lQ s that as a result of British representations the United States sent “the brusquest caution it has yet framed” to the Jewish Administration. “The immediate danger passed with the withdrawal of Jewish troops,” it adds, “but no responsible Jewish politician is in a position to remove speedily the real roots of the present danger to peace. These lie in Israel’s;victories in recent months, which tempt every Israeli commander to romp onwards, and in. the present state of Israeli armaments, which are now so good that they totally outstrip the arms of all the remaining Arab adversaries. The Israelis are in a position to fight, and to fight with effective weapons, outside their own frontiers if they are so minded.

“Responsibility on United States”

“British policy is not to obstruct Jewish legitimate aspirations, and its present preoccupation is to prevent the Jews from precipitating a situation in the Middle East which must either widen the area of the war or lead to a collapse of the British-American strategic position. This can only be achieved by absolute unanimity of policy between London and Washing-

ton. The British Government has for the time being no influence in Israel, and the responsibility for inducing the Israeli State to follow a moderate course rests upon the American Government.

“The great question is whether the United States can usq its influence to check wider Jewish ambitions, to create and guarantee fixed frontiers for Israel, and to devote its attention to the problem of pacifying and stabilising the Arab world. It can be done if London and Washington act together. If they do not, they will neither of them soon have any foothold or influence at all in one of the world’s most vital regions.” The “Daily Telegraph” says: “The unprovoked destruction of the British aeroplanes may serve to heighten appreciation of the tremendous risks involved in the flow of arms to Palestine and of the necessity of a closer understanding in Middle Eastern policy between the countries whose interests in that area are subject to a grave threat.”

The “Daily Mail” hopes that the United States Government may now “at last be made to see where its real interests lie.” It adds: “If Israel,*backed by Rusisa, secures a strong position in the Middle East, the threat to the West will be greater than from a China dominated by Communism.”

BRITAIN DENIES REPORT

(Rec. 10.30.) NEW YORK, Jan. 10. Sir Terence Shone (acting-British delegate to the Security Council) talked with Mr Trygve Lie (SecretaryGeneral) to-day, but according to informed quarters the discussion was on Palestine generally and not specifically in regard to the air clash incident between Britain and Israel. A British spokesman to-day denied press reports from Tel-Aviv that Britain had sent any arms to Arab countries since the first Palestine truce was effected on May last. A “report published in the “New York Times” had said that deliveries of British arms to Egypt during the last few months amounted to £50,000,000, and included a shipment of the most modern jet fighters.