Partition in Washington: An Inquiry
The Factors Guiding Our Government's Policy
Conflict over Kashmir filled the Security Council’s agenda in the second week of February, but the corridors buzzed with Palestine. Upstairs, in a remote wing of the made—over Sperry plant at Lake Success, the “five lonely pilgrims” of the Palestine Commission were writing and rewriting the case for an international police to halt the rampaging Arabs—and wondering if their labors would achieve much beyond literary exercise. For added private confusion their chairman, Karel Lisicky of Czechoslovakia, was turning red and pink over Cairo reports that the Arab League aimed to buy more anti-partition arms from—of all places—Czechoslovakia. James Reston of the New York Times was floating an authoritative trial balloon for a bi-partisan policy that would take Zionism out of American politics, and Joseph Alsop of the Herald Tribune was calling down maledictions on the President for having succumbed to pro-partition pressure without thought of the awful consequences.
A harassed Mr. Truman was now, according to alternate “well-informed” rumor, telling Democratic Boss Ed Flynn that the United States would back partition all the way and telling an unidentified but distinguished pro-Zionist visitor that bad advice in favor of partition had put the President of the United States in a most disastrous personal position. Nobody knew for certain whether Palestine policy, supposed to be made in the White House, would continue to be made there, or where to go in search of it.
About the Author