Summary
The joint declaration issued on 26/5/50 by the governments of Britain, France and the United States, one month after Abdullah’s annexation of the West Bank, in which the three powers undertook to act, within and outside the UN, against any violation of frontiers or armistice lines in the region; Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace treats it as the instrument that legitimized the post-1948 status quo and substituted the three Western powers for the UN as its guarantors (Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace, PDF p.74-76).
Details
- Its two main clauses, as quoted in the book from the Israeli MFA’s historical documents: the three Governments recognise that the Arab states and Israel need armed forces for internal security, legitimate self-defence and their part in the defence of the area as a whole, arms applications to be considered in that light; and should they find any of these states “preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would, consistently with their obligations as members of the United Nations, immediately take action, both within and outside the United Nations, to prevent such violation” (Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace, PDF p.74).
- Ben-Gurion announced in the Knesset on 31/5/50 that the government “received with special satisfaction” the declaration, applying its promise equally to Israel’s boundaries “as they were determined in the ceasefire agreements with Egypt, Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon” (PDF p.75).
- The book argues Britain initiated it to legitimize the status quo created by the annexation without being the only power to conspire behind the UN’s back, and that the USA and France responded willingly for a foothold in the Middle East; Israel’s announcement mentioned nothing of the clause envisioning Israel in a Western-bloc military alignment in the Cold War (PDF p.76).
- The Arab states rejected it in a proclamation of 25/6/50 signed by Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq and Jordan (PDF p.76).
- In the Knesset debate Sapir analysed its negative side (a sphere of influence proclaimed without Israel as a party) and its positive side (actors able to act in defence of the status quo) (PDF p.77); Mapam and Maki attacked it as joining the Cold War against the Soviet Union, Herut attacked satisfaction with the present borders, and Pinchas Lavon defended the commitment to the existing borders (PDF p.78).
- The book treats Israel’s positive reply as recognition of the three powers’ status in the region and as the beginning of the end of its declared policy of Non-alignment, because the Abdullah collusion required Western endorsement of the status quo in contradiction to the UN resolutions (PDF p.116, p.118).
Related pages
Peace, Peace, When There Is No Peace, Amir Abdullah, Pinchas Lavon, Non-alignment, David Ben-Gurion