President Eisenhower Radio Address on the Situation in the Middle East
(February 20, 1957)
On receipt of the Dulles aide-memoire of February 11, 1956, Ambassador
Eban was called to Jerusalem for consultations. On February 18, Prime
Minister David Ben-Gurion appealed to Secretary Dulles to postpone the discussions in the General
Assembly so that a committee composed of representatives of disinterested
States should come to Israel to attempt to reach an agreement on the
points at issue in Gaza and at Sharm el-Sheikh. On February 20, President
Eisenhower broadcast the following address to the American people venting his anger over Israel's failure to withdraw from territories
it captured in the 1956 war.
My Fellow Citizens:
May I first explain to you that for some days I have
been experiencing a very stubborn cough, so if because of this I should
have to interrupt myself this evening, I crave your indulgence in advance.
I come to you again to talk about the situation in
the Middle East. The future of the United
Nations and peace in the Middle East may be at stake.
In the four months since I talked to you about the
crisis in that area, the United Nations has made considerable progress
in resolving some of the difficult problems. We are now, however, faced
with a fateful moment as the result of the failure of Israel to withdraw its forces behind the Armistice lines, as contemplated by
the United Nations Resolutions on this subject.
I have already today met with leaders of both Parties
from the Senate and the House of Representatives. We had a very useful
exchange of views. It was the general feeling of that meeting that I
should lay the situation before the American people.
Now, before talking about the specific issues involved,
I want to make clear that these issues are not something remote and
abstract, but involve matters vitally touching upon the future of each
one of us.
The Middle East is a land-bridge between the Eurasian
and African continents. Millions of tons of commerce are transmitted
through it annually. Its own products, especially petroleum, are essential
to Europe and to the Western world.
The United States has no ambitions or desires in this
region. It hopes only that each country there may maintain its independence
and live peacefully within itself and with its neighbors and, by peaceful
cooperation with others, develop its own spiritual and material resources.
But that much is vital to the peace and well-being of us all. This is
our concern today.
So tonight I report to you on the matters in controversy
and on what I believe the position of the United States must be.
When I talked to you last October, I pointed out that
the United States fully realized that military action against Egypt
resulted from grave and repeated provocations. But I said also that
the use of military force to solve international disputes could not
be reconciled with the principles and purposes of the United Nations.
I added that our country could not believe that resort to force and
war would for long serve the permanent interests of the attacking nations,
which were Britain, France and Israel.
So I pledged that the United States would seek through
the United Nations to end the conflict. We would strive to bring about
a recall of the forces of invasion, and then make a renewed and earnest
effort through that Organization to secure justice, under international
law, for all the parties concerned.
Since that time much has been achieved and many of
the dangers implicit in the situation have been avoided. The Governments
of Britain and France have withdrawn their forces from Egypt.
Thereby they showed respect for the opinions of mankind as expressed
almost unanimously by the 80 nation members of the United Nations General
Assembly.
I want to pay tribute to the wisdom of this action
of our friends and allies. They made an immense contribution to world
order. Also they put the other nations of the world under a heavy obligation
to see to it that these two nations do not suffer by reason of their
compliance with the United Nations Resolutions. This has special application,
I think, to their treaty rights to passage through the Suez Canal which
had been made an international waterway for all by the Treaty of 1888.
The Prime Minister of Israel, in answer to a personal
communication, assured me early
in November that Israel would willingly withdraw its forces if and
when there should be created a United
Nations force to move into the Suez Canal area. This force was,
in fact, created and has moved into the Canal area.
Subsequently, Israeli forces were withdrawn from much
of the territory of Egypt which they had occupied. However, Israeli
forces still remain outside the Armistice lines. They are at the mouth
of the Gulf of Aqaba which is about 100 miles from the nearest Israeli
territory. They are also in the Gaza Strip which, by the Armistice Agreement,
was to be occupied by Egypt. These facts create the present crisis.
We are approaching a fateful moment when either we
must recognize that the United Nations is unable to restore peace in
this area, or the United Nations must renew with increased vigor its
efforts to bring about Israeli withdrawal.
Repeated, but, so far, unsuccessful, efforts have been
made to bring about a voluntary withdrawal by Israel. These efforts
have been made both by the United Nations and by the United States and
other member states.
Equally serious efforts have been made to bring about
conditions designed to assure that if Israel will withdraw in response
to the repeated requests of the United Nations, there will then be achieved
a greater security and tranquility for that nation. This means that
the United Nations would assert a determination to see that in the Middle
East there will be a greater degree of justice and compliance with international
law than was the case prior to the events of last October-November.
A United Nations Emergency Force, with Egypt's consent,
entered that nation's territory in order to help maintain the cease-fire,
which the United Nations called for on November 2. The Secretary General,
who ably and devotedly serves the United Nations, has recommended a
number of measures which might be taken by the United Nations and by
its Emergency Force to assure for the future the avoidance by either
side of belligerent acts.
The United Nations General Assembly on February 2 by
an overwhelming vote adopted a pertinent Resolution.
It was to the effect that, after full withdrawal of Israel from the
Gulf of Aqaba and Gaza areas, the United Nations Emergency Force should
be placed on the Egyptian-Israeli Armistice lines to assure the scrupulous
maintenance of the Armistice Agreement. Also the United Nations General
Assembly called for the implementation of other measures proposed by
the Secretary General. These other measures embraced the use of the
United Nations Emergency Forces at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba, so
as to assure non-belligerency in this area.
The United States was a co-sponsor of this United Nations
Resolution. Thus the United States sought to assure that Israel would,
for the future, enjoy its rights under the Armistice and under international
law.
In view of the valued friendly relations which the
United States has always had with the State of Israel, I wrote to Prime
Minister Ben-Gurion on February 3. I recalled his statement to me of
November 8 to the effect that the Israeli forces would be withdrawn
under certain conditions, and I urged that, in view of the General Assembly
Resolutions of February 2, Israel should complete that withdrawal.
However, the Prime Minister, in his reply, took the
position that Israel would not evacuate its military forces from the
Gaza Strip unless Israel retained the civil administration and police.
This would be in contradiction to the Armistice Agreement. Also, the
reply said that Israel would not withdraw from the Straits of Aqaba
unless freedom of passage through the Straits was assured.
It was a matter of keen disappointment to us that the
Government of Israel, despite the United Nations action, still felt
unwilling to withdraw.
However, in a further effort to meet the views of Israel
in these respects, Secretary of State Dulles, at my direction, gave
to the Government of Israel on February 11 a statement of United States
policy. This has now been made public. It pointed out that neither the
United States nor the United Nations had authority to impose upon the
parties a substantial modification of the Armistice Agreement which
was freely signed by both Israel and Egypt. Nevertheless, the statement
said, the United States as a member of the United Nations would seek
such disposition of the United Nations Emergency Force as would assure
that the Gaza Strip could no longer be used as a source of armed infiltration
and reprisals.
The Secretary of State orally informed the Israeli
Ambassador that the United States would be glad to urge and support,
also, some participation by the United Nations, with the approval of
Egypt, in the administration of the Gaza Strip. The principal population
of the Strip consists of about 200,000 Arab refugees, who exist largely
as a charge upon the benevolence of the United Nations and its members.
With reference to the passage into and through the
Gulf of Aqaba, we expressed the conviction that the Gulf constitutes
international waters, and that no nation has the right to prevent free
and innocent passage in the Gulf. We announced that the United States
was prepared to exercise this right itself and to join with others to
secure general recognition of this right.
The Government of Israel has not yet accepted, as adequate
insurance of its own safety after withdrawal, the far-reaching United
Nations Resolution of February 2 plus the important declaration of United
States policy made by our Secretary of State on February 11.
Israel seeks something more. It insists on firm guarantees
as a condition to withdrawing its forces of invasion.
This raises a basic question of principle. Should a
nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United
Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal?
If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve
the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back
the clock of international order. We will, in effect, have countenanced
the use of force as a means of settling international differences and
through this gaining national advantages.
I do not, myself, see how this could be reconciled
with the Charter of the United Nations.
The basic pledge of all the members of the United Nations is that they
will settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and will
not use force against the territorial integrity of another state.
If the United Nations once admits that international
disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed
the very foundation of the Organization, and our best hope of establishing
a world order. That would be a disaster for us all.
I would, I feel, be untrue to the standards of the
high office to which you have chosen me, if I were to lend the influence
of the United States to the proposition that a nation which invades
another should be permitted to exact conditions for withdrawal.
Of course, we and all the members of the United Nations
ought to support justice and conformity with international law. The
first Article of the Charter states the purpose of the United Nations
to be "the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches
of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity
with justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international
disputes." But it is to be observed that conformity with justice
and international law are to be brought about "by peaceful means."
We cannot consider that the armed invasion and occupation
of another country are "peaceful means" or proper means to
achieve justice and conformity with international law.
We do, however, believe that upon the suppression of
the present act of aggression and breach of the peace, there should
be a greater effort by the United Nations and its members to secure
justice and conformity with international law. Peace and justice are
two sides of the same coin.
Perhaps the world community has been at fault in not
having paid enough attention to this basic truth. The United States,
for its part, will vigorously seek solutions of the problems of the
area in accordance with justice and international law. And we shall
in this great effort seek the association of other like-minded nations
which realize, as we do, that peace and justice are in the long run
inseparable.
But the United Nations faces immediately the problem
of what to do next. If it does nothing, if it accepts the ignoring of
its repeated resolutions calling for the withdrawal of invading forces,
then it will have admitted failure. That failure would be a blow to
the authority and influence of the United Nations in the world and to
the hopes which humanity placed in the United Nations as the means of
achieving peace with justice.
I do not believe that Israel's default should be ignored
because the United Nations has not been able effectively to carry out
its resolutions condemning the Soviet Union for its armed suppression
of the people of Hungary. Perhaps this is a case where the proverb applies
that two wrongs do not make a right.
No one deplores more than I the fact that the Soviet
Union ignores the resolutions of the United Nations. Also no nation
is more vigorous than is the United States in seeking to exert moral
pressure against the Soviet Union, which by reason of its size and power,
and by reason of its veto in the Security Council, is relatively impervious
to other types of sanction.
The United States and other free nations are making
clear by every means at their command the evil of Soviet conduct in
Hungary. It would indeed be a sad day if the United States ever felt
that it had to subject Israel to the same type of moral pressure as
is being applied to the Soviet Union.
There can, of course, be no equating of a nation like
Israel with that of the Soviet Union. The people of Israel, like those
of the United States, are imbued with a religious faith and a sense
of moral values. We are entitled to expect, and do expect, from such
peoples of the free world a contribution to world order which unhappily
we cannot expect from a nation controlled by atheistic despots.
It has been suggested that United Nations actions against
Israel should not be pressed because Egypt has in the past violated
the Armistice Agreement and international law. It is true that both
Egypt and Israel, prior to last October, engaged in reprisals in violation
of the Armistice agreements. Egypt ignored the United Nations in exercising
belligerent rights in relation to Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal
and in the Gulf of Aqaba. However, such violations constitute no justification
for the armed invasion of Egypt by Israel which the United Nations is
now seeking to undo.
Failure to withdraw would be harmful to the long term
good of Israel. It would, in addition to its injury to the United Nations,
jeopardize the prospects of the peaceful solution of the problems of
the Mid-East. This could bring incalculable ills to our friends and
indeed to our nation itself. It would make infinitely more difficult
the realization of the goals which I laid out in my Middle East message
of January fifth to the Congress seeking to strengthen the area against
Communist aggression, direct or indirect.
The United Nations must not fail. I believe that--in
the interests of peace--the United Nations has no choice but to exert
pressure upon Israel to comply with the withdrawal resolutions. Of course,
we still hope that the Government of Israel will see that its best immediate
and long-term interests lie in compliance with the United Nations and
in placing its trust in the Resolutions of the United Nations and in
the declaration of the United States with reference to the future.
Egypt, by accepting the Six Principles adopted by the
Security Council last October in relation to the Suez Canal, bound itself
to free and open transit through the Canal without discrimination, and
to the principle that the operation of the Canal should be insulated
from the politics of any country.
We should not assume that if Israel withdraws, Egypt
will prevent Israeli shipping from using the Suez Canal or the Gulf
of Aqaba. If, unhappily, Egypt does hereafter violate the Armistice
agreement or other international obligations, then this should be dealt
with firmly by the society of nations.
The present moment is a grave one, but we are hopeful
that reason and right will prevail. Since the events of last October-November,
solid progress has been made, in conformity with the Charter of the
United Nations. There is the cease-fire, the forces of Britain and France
have been withdrawn, the forces of Israel have been partially withdrawn,
and the clearing of the Canal nears completion. When Israel completes
its withdrawal, it will have removed a definite block to further progress.
Once this block is removed, there will be serious and
creative tasks for the United Nations to perform. There needs to be
respect for the right of Israel to national existence and to internal
development. Complicated provisions insuring the effective international
use of the Suez Canal will need to be worked out in detail. The Arab
refugee problem must be solved. As I said in my special message to Congress
on January 5, it must be made certain that all the Middle East is kept
free from aggression and infiltration.
Finally, all who cherish freedom, including ourselves,
should help the nations of the Middle East achieve their just aspirations
for improving the well-being of their peoples.
What I have spoken about tonight is only one step in
a long process calling for patience and diligence, but at this moment
it is the critical issue on which future progress depends.
It is an issue which can be solved if only we will
apply the principles of the United Nations.
That is why, my fellow Americans, I know that you want
the United States to continue to use its maximum influence to sustain
those principles as the world's best hope for peace.
Good night--and thank you very much.
NOTE: In further reference to this subject a White
House statement was issued on February 22, 1957, from which the following
is excerpted:
The President and the Secretary of State discussed
the speech of last night of Prime Minister Ben-Gurion of Israel insofar as the text was available.
The President and the Secretary regret that the Government
of Israel has not yet found it possible to withdraw its forces from
the Gaza Strip and the Gulf of Aqaba.
The door is certainly not closed to further discussion
of the situation.
The President and the Secretary welcome such further
discussion because they believe that a full understanding of the United
States position and the United Nations
Resolutions of February second should make it possible for Israel
to proceed with the withdrawal.
Sources: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs |