The UK Bible Students Website
The British resolution on the Middle East, adopted by the Security Council last month, became possible for two basic reasons – Israel’s resounding defeat of the Arab armies, and American’s full and almost immediate recognition of the implications flowing from it.
‘The Arabs’ defeat, it was obvious, was also a defeat for the Soviet Union, which had supported their anti-Israel intransigence with masses of modern weapons – and a defeat for the Russians in the Middle East is per se a victory for American policy, whose cornerstone has always been to keep – or try to boot – the U.S.S.R. out of there. . . .
This policy has been, and obviously remains, a simple one: to keep the Soviet Union out of Middle East States where it does not yet have a toehold; to undercut it where it has gained influence, and to do all this short of war, and, of course, short of allowing Israel’s destruction.
America did not know quite what to do. She surely did not want to see Israel destroyed, yet the policy of appeasing the Arabs was so strong that there was an impasse. The first action was to clamp down an arms embargo, as happened in the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. This has not yet been entirely lifted.
‘. . . Israel is no doubt extremely grateful to America for everything it has done since the eventful days of June, and America is no doubt friendlier and warmer to Israel than at any time since 1948. But friendships change, and warm days turn chilly.
‘Israel does not need to be told this. After all, she has President de Gaulle as a constant reminder.’