LETTER TO MR. ALLEN W. DULLES FROM (REV.) EDWARD. R. ELSON

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 4, 2002
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: September 30, 1958
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R003800050011-6
Executive Registry
September 30, 1958
Mr. Allen W. Dulles
Central Intelligence Agency
21L30 E St.
Washington, D. C.
The recent grave crisis in the Middle East emphasizes the urgent necessity
for giving heed to great scholars of enduring reputation.
One of the most distinguished of these is Professor William Ernest Hocking
of Harvard, some of whose recent statements on the Middle East crisis we send you
herewith, selected for your convenience from his longer philosophical and historical
studies of the subject by an equally distinguished scholar and authority on the
Middle East, Dean Virginia C. Gildersleeve, Emeritus, of Barnard College, Columbia
University. Professors Hocking and Gildersleeve believe, as do we the undersigned,
that the Arab-Israeli dispute is a principal cause of the crisis in the Middle East
and is threatening to set off World War III.
probable cause of a third and most terrible global war.
By failing to take decisive action to solve this deadlock, by just letting
matters drift, we are running a terrible risk--that of becoming involved in a war
against Russia to defend the State of Israel. You, as we, certainly wish to avoid
such a calamity. To understand the background, causes, and treatment of this dan-
gerous situation, we urge you to read this succinct analysis of the problem.
Decisive action towards peaceful settlement must be taken immediately--now,
we firmly believe, by all parties involved, including ourselves! But it is first
of all our responsibility, we believe, to persuade Israel to begin such action, as
we persuaded her, after her invasion of Egypt, to withdraw from Gaza and Sinai.
If we couple this advice to her with a generous plan for aiding the economic de-
velopment of the whole Middle East, it will benefit Israelis, Arabs and all other
peoples of that area. We may also greatly benefit ourselves, by eliminating one
Since-pely yours,
(Rev.) 'Edward'L. R. Elson, D.D.,
Minister, The National Presbyterian Church
Ca-Signnera
Dr. Alford Carleton, Exec. Vice-President, American Board of Commissioners for
Foreign Missions
(Rev.) Harry Emerson Fosdick, D.D., Minister Emeritus, Riverside Church
(Rev.) Ralph Gorman, C.P., Editor, The Sign
(Rev.) Douglas Horton, D.D., Dean, Harvard Divinity School
Bishop Gerald Kennedy, D.D., The Methodist Church, Los Angeles Area
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R003800050011-6
 Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6
PEACE BY PERSUASION
IN THE
MIDDLE EAST
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 CIA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6
 Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6
PEACE BY PERSUASION
IN THE
MIDDLE EAST
An Analysis
with
Proposals For Solution
of the
Arab-Israeli Problem
by
Dr. William Ernest' Hocking
Alford Professor Emeritus of Philosophy
Harvard University
with
Editorial Commentary
by
Dr. Virginia C. Gildersleeve
Dean Emeritus, Barnard College
Columbia University
Reading Time: 9 minutes
45 seconds
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6
 Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R003800050011-6
I. WHY ISRAEL, THOUGH CLAIMING TO BE A "FAIT
ACCOMPLI," HAS NOT ACHIEVED ANY MEASURE OF
PEACE
II. THE TWO CHIEF REASONS WHY NEITHER TIME NOR
FORGETFULNESS MITIGATES THE ARAB HATRED OF
ISRAEL, UNLIKE THE CASE OF OPPOSING NATIONS ONE
OF WHICH IS DEFEATED IN A WAR
III. WHY THE WORLD CONSIDERS AMERICA RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL AND
ITS SPONSOR AND GUIDE TODAY
IV. WHAT BEING THE SPONSOR OF ISRAEL LETS US IN FOR
V. WHAT WE MUST TRY TO PERSUADE ISRAEL TO DO
VI. APPENDIX
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R003800050011-6
 WHY ISRAAk?P C JE IM / 9r CIA- tj %Wd&NM300ftWMIS ACHIEVED
Those who hope for peace in the Middle East have on their hands something more than
a problem of power-balance, namely, a problem of psychology. Power-balances are excellent
placebos for minor and transient irritations; for persisting sources of wrath they are both
costly and futile. Unless substantial peace lies in the minds of adjacent peoples, the formal
devices of cease-fire, armistice, even peace-treaty, can bring only suspension of enduring
hostilities. The radical issue in the Middle East is not whether fighting can be suppressed; it
is whether antagonisms are incurable. Why, for example, can the Arab world not adjust itself
to the Israeli fait accompli? Is it a case of what we pleasantly call "intransigence," --
in the vernacular, pure cussedness? Or is this facile theory an instance of reluctance to
face a genuine issue, - which after all must be faced? . . . .
My modest suggestion is that a certain haste to pronounce a disturbance-breeding
situation an "accomplished fact" may be wishful thinking, sometimes indicative of an
uneasy conscience. If an achievement is won by means not bearing too close scrutiny, and
more especially, if it has been won with the conscious aim of making immediate appeal to
the fait accompli, there is reason to ask whether, indeed, everything is finally settled:
when can we fairly say the matter is concluded?
I suggest, further, that in the present situation this question has peculiar importance;
for accurate diagnosis is here the prior condition for any cure. In my judgment, this hurried
appeal to accomplished fact is precisely the element that justly infuriates the Arab mind
and blocks the spirit of peace. It is not (as Lester B. Pearson of Canada recently suggested
in the U.N. General Assembly), - it is not simply fear of Israel's future expansionist ambi-
tion: it is a radical sense of injustice in what has already been done. A perfect security, which
should freeze the status quo unexamined, and justified in its own realism, would leave the
root of trouble untouched . . . for the Arab world will not solve the problem for us by
forgetfulness; nor will it be choked down.
WHY NEITHER TIME NOR FORGETFULNESS MITIGATES THE ARAB HATRED OF ISRAEL
UNLIKE THE CASE OF OPPOSING NATIONS ONE OF WHICH IS DEFEATED IN A WAR
. In mid-1917, the Allied Campaign in Europe seemed about to collapse. In Churchill's
words, "many hitherto unswerving despaired of victory." Haig's drive had failed; French
troops had mutinied at Verdun; the Russians were about to desert; American help was as
yet only a hope and unproven. In this situation, referred to by Lloyd George as the darkest
hour of the war, no item of possible help was insignificant: the favor and financial aid of
World Jewry, not forgetting the great Jewish American banks, were matters of weight. In
February of that year, Sir Mark Sykes began discussion with Zionist leaders. When we
refer to the "Balfour Declaration" our perspective will be wholly out of drawing if we fail
to realize the conditions of its origin. In Churchill's words,
"The Balfour Declaration . . . must not be regarded as a promise given from senti-
mental motives: it was a practical measure taken in the interest of a common cause, at a
moment when that cause could afford to neglect no factor of material or moral assistance."
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6
 The DeAWr #@a %V Li2jn 7w.OZVA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6
1. It bargained with interests in Palestine which were not at British or any Allied
disposal;
2. Its promises to Zionists were inconsistent with simultaneous and later expectations
deliberately raised in Arab minds, to whom Allenby was soon to proclaim from Cairo not
only the intent of emancipation from Turkish rule, but also a clear prospect of independence;
but
3. - and this is the presently important point - The Declaration is at odds with itself,
inherently - I will not say crooked, but disingenuous.. . . It promises, together with the
"favour" of His Majesty's Government, also their "best endeavours to facilitate the
achievement" of the projected national home for the Jewish people. At the same time it
expresses the all-important condition that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the
civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities . . . " Yet the logic of a
national home in which Jewish law and spirit must be dominant is clearly inconsistent
with equal status, civil or religious, on the part of Arabs.
This inconsistency showed itself at various levels, beginning with the economic basis
of life. In colonies of the Zionist Organization, it was "made a matter of principle to employ
only Jewish labor." If any colonist renter was caught'three times employing non-Jewish
labor, his holding could be confiscated without repayment.
In such ways (wholly pacific and legal, please note), the Arab began to feel himself an
alien in his own economy, or what had been his economy. And since land secured by the
Jewish Agency was taken on terms that it "be held forever as the inalienable property of
the Jewish People," it became in effect to the Arab an extra-territorial domain from which
he could never thereafter enjoy any benefit (Simpson Report, Oct. 1930, p. 54). To achieve
the necessary goal of Zionism, a line of privilege on one side and exclusion on the other
was quietly built into the economic basis of daily life.
THE OTHER CHIEF REASON WHY ARAB HATRED REMAINS SO LASTING AND INTENSE
With Hitler's catastrophic passage through European history . . . from the :mid-
thirties, onward, the "National Home" as a token Jewish society, accepting physical
limits, began to be called on as refuge in emergency for stricken multitudes. Their mortal
need swamped existing conceptions, and unfortunately also swept away regard for existing
obligations. It was natural and right that limitless human exigency should for the time take
first place; it was natural that the terms of the Balfour document and the balanced policy
of the Mandate should require revision. It was neither natural nor right that the new demands
should be held to cancel permanently the human claims for which the soil of Palestine was
already in bond.
The events which called out universal, compassion appeared to call out in Palestine a
leadership devoid of compassion except for its own. Events after the end of the British
Mandate (May 14, 1948) and the proclamation of the State of Israel are well known. But the
half year between November 29, 1947 and May 14, 1948 is a little known period of our
current history. Its importance, however, is out of proportion to its extent - it contains
the key to all that has followed.
-2-
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6
 To unc off~d P& PQ a Qbd 215ixCIAOROMOBOJONOZ WbdOCINgi with that the
United Nations Partition Resolution gave 56% of Palestine to the proposed State of Israel.
The remaining 44% was to be divided between the Arab State of Palestine and the International
Zone of Jerusalem, which would be accessible at all times to all three faiths. This arrange-
ment was obviously unfavorable to the Arabs, since the population of the so-called "Jewish"
portion was only 50% Jewish and this 50% actually owned less than 10% of the land in this
territory. The United Nations tried, however, to protect the Arab population by clearly stating
that the position of the current inhabitants was in no way to be prejudiced by the proposed
partition and that they were to retain all rights aid property (Partition Resolution, Part 1-C
Chapter 3).
On the morrow of the Partition Resolution, disorders broke out from both sides. In the
confusion a pattern began to emerge, an organized military campaign systematically directed
toward two major objectives: first, to confirm the Jewish dominance over the Arabs within
the proposed limits of the Jewish state and second, to enlarge those limits. The Irgun, the
Stern Gang, and the Haganah - forerunner of the Israeli army - came out from underground
and began openly to attack Arab villages and cities, driving out the inhabitants or massacring
those who stood by their homes and fields. In this way they managed to enlarge considerably
the 56% of territory which had been liberally assigned to them in the first place. During this
period more than 200,000 Arabs were expelled from their homes and territory.
That this was a planned military maneuver there is no longer the slightest doubt. The
then commander of the Irgun (now leader of the Herut party), Menachem Begin, in his book,
The Revolt__ - Story of the Irgun, documents the planning of the attacks by the leaders of
these three organizations. In addition to this, the Government Year Books of the State of
Israel comment at length on this period of the war and the Knesset in their Nationality Law
of 1952, which was passed April 1, 1952, gives mention to persons who have served in the
Defense Army of Israel after November 29, 1947. David Ben Gurion said in September 1950,
"Until the British left, no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the
Arabs, while the Haganah. . . captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberias and Haifa,
Jaffa and Safad. So, on the day of destiny (May 15, 1948), that part of Palestine where the
Haganah could operate was almost clear of Arabs." It is significant to note that all this was
taking place during the remaining period of the British Mandate and before the combined
Arab armies ever set foot into Palestine.
A partial list of major attacks and occupations of Arab cities and villages includes
December 1947: Quzaza; February 1948: Sa'Sa' and Haifa; March 1948: Salameh, Bir Adas
and Kanna; April 1948: Kastal, Deir Yaseen, Lajjun, Saris, Tiberias, Haifa, Jerusalem,
Jaffa and Acre; May 1948: Jerusalem, Safad and Beisan. The New York Times carried
quite complete accounts of all these attacks. The purpose behind this stepping up, of course,
was to confront the United Nations with a fait accompli so that even if the Partition Re-
solution were voided, the Zionist forces would be in actual military control of most of
Palestine. As Ben Gurion so aptly expressed it in Rebirth and Destiny of Israel: "Force
of arms, not formal resolutions, will determine the issue."
In sum: before the British Mandate had ended on May 14, 1948 and two months before
the State of Israel could legally be proclaimed according to the United Nations Partition
Resolution (Paragraph 3, Part 1-A) the Zionist-Israeli armies had already illegally occupied
much of the territory reserved for the Arab State as well as most of the International Zone
of Jerusalem in addition to the territory reserved for the Jewish State. During this six-
-3-
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6
 o% i1F csel 8fe? gJr0?37 ~4j-R
month period oqrv
- ay D OBP4 618RVmor010n'&9000 Arabs
were driven out of their homes by terrorist tactics and became refugees - contrary to
every expressed intention of the United Nations and to every human decency. The impact
of these sufferings extended in deep waves to the entire Arab world. Sympathy and an outraged
sense of justice became a determined antipathy to Israel not to be cured by diplomatic
placebos of essentially uninformed statesmen . . . .
It was only after the British withdrawal, and the immediately following proclamation
of the Israeli State on May 14, 1948, that organized Arab armies entered Palestine to contest
the Partition which all Arab states had consistently and reasonably opposed. From this date
onward, the United Nations, dismayed that its effort for a peaceful solution had produced the
opposite effect, has constantly reminded Israel of its obligations, contractual and human,
almost without result. As Ben Gurion has stated, "All that we have taken we shall hold."
For this reason the situation in the Middle East remains in principle and unprinciple what
it was ten years ago, except that in the war of 1948-49 Israel annexed even more territory
and that there are now about one million refugees, for whose absorption Israel firmly washes
its hands, - let the Arab States take care of their own 1
Rejection of responsibility for the refugees is often sustained by the theory that they
were not driven from home, but fled on the advice of outside leaders hopeful of swift victory.
Here one must seek the dominant truth amid many mixed details. Fortunately we have this
over-all judgment by a singularly competent and objective observer, Major O'Ballance.
At the end of his careful account of The Arab-Israeli War he writes: `Many Israeli sym-
pathizers were appalled at the ruthless way in which the Arab inhabitants were ousted from
their homes and driven before the advancing armies, and this caused many twinges of
conscience in the Western World. The Israelis made no excuse for it as it was all part
of their plan for the reconquest of their Promised Land, in which there Was no room
for large, hostile, alien groups."*
*O'13allance, Edgar. The Arab-Israeli. War, 1948. New York: Praeger, 1957. p. 209
-4-
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6
 WHY THE OF THE
STATE OF ISRAEL AND ITS SPONSOR AND GUIDE TODAY
By Dr. Virginia C. Gildersleeve
In this section before we resume the excerpts from Professor Hocking's writing, I should
like to recall brieflythe chief facts concerning the relationship of U.S.A. and Israel with which
Professor Hocking has dealt elsewhere. Our knowledge of these facts and events forms a
necessary connecting link between the preceding sections of this pamphlet and Professor Hocking's
conclusions which follow.
When the Resolution recommending the Partition of Palestine was brought before
the General Assembly of the United Nations in November, 1947, it was the United States which
by every kind of persuasion and pressure forced its adoption.
This Resolution recommended the division of Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish,
united in an economic union; and also an internationalized Jerusalem, administered by the
United Nations for the great religions which hold that city sacred.
Out of the tumult which ensued, and which Professor Hocking has so vividly described,
the Zionist state emerged. Proclaimed on May 15, 1948, it was instantly recognized by President
Truman, who thus gave it official standing in the world. But, as Professor Hocking has just shown
you, this new de facto state was neither in its boundaries, its population, nor its economy the
state which the U. N. had recommended.
Since then the United States Government has repeatedly made grants to Israel, amounting
in all, for her one and a half million' inhabitants, to nearly half a billion dollars. This contrasts
with about one hundred fifty-five million dollars granted to all the Arab States together, with
their forty million inhabitants.
Besides the United States Government funds, Israel has received another billion dollars
from private citizens and organizations in America. Thus we have expended on this little country,
the size of Vermont', almost one and a half billion dollars, in round figures.
Why we have done this is easily comprehensible. Because of the terrible Hitler persecutions
we felt deep sympathy for Jewish refugees and wanted to help them. Because of our general
ignorance of the circumstances in the Middle East and the extremely effective Zionist propaganda
we did not realize the cruel injustice and prolonged exile we were inflictingonthe Palestinians,
or the perilous position in which we were helping to put the Jewish refugees who had fled to Palestine.
Moreover, a large proportion of the Jews of the world live in the United States. The city
of New York alone contains far more Jews than the whole State of Israel. These Americans have
given generously to their fellow Jews overseas.
Finally, politicians have favored Israel in order to secure, as they thought, the "Jewish
vote" in certain critical states such as New York. (The existence of such a vote seemed to
be disproved byy the "landslide" for President Eisenhower in 1956 at a moment when he was
opposing Israel.)
Altogether we have committed ourselves, in the eyes of the world, to the support and
protection of Israel, while Russia seems to have commitedyherself to the support and protection
of the Arab States.
-5-
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R003800050011-6
 Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R003800050011-6
The impasse between the Arab States and Israel brings out to the full the anomalous
character of the relation between this country and the State of Israel. The situation .has such
explosive possibilities for world peace that even a person who would a thousand times
rather keep silent is impelled to speak out, and call for a clear termination of our false
position.
The point is this: that we have, with all good will, been thrown into a relationship of
sponsorship of Israel with no capacity for controlling Israel's foreign policies. If Israel,
instead of making friends, makes enemies, they become, wholly apart from our intention,
critics of the United States. And Israel has busily been doing this, relying - as I read the
story - either on the disposition of her sponsor to help her over any consequent difficulties,
or perhaps on his inability, or his fear, to do otherwise.
Looked at objectively, the situation is clearly preposterous. It encourages the Israelis
in regard to boundary lines which, in view of the common good and good will, need to be
considered and reconsidered . . . to take an indiscriminate and intransigent position, and
in the same breath to appeal as by unwritten right to Uncle Sam for military means to
support this inflexibility, however contrary to the world interest in peace . . . . .
What these United States are called on to endorse, with increasing assurance on the
part of Israeli emissaries,,,is.the Israeli fait accompli - regardless of the means by which
the accomplishment has been effected, and in the full extent. to which the new state would
like to regard the job as done. We are finding ourselves insensibly drawn to be the material
guarantors of the, Zionist futurity. Do we like the role? Is there.any honesty in it? I say no.
Even if Israel could grow in a vacuum, our endorsement of her dream is not our function
nor our right.
WHAT WE MUST, TRY TO PERSUADE ISRAEL TO DO
An Israel which would meet with her Arab neighbors for the express purpose of
discussing border revisions, which would meet with the United Nations for the purpose of
internationalizing Jerusalem for the three faiths, which would offer to repatriate some
of the refugees - or in minimum would acknowledge their right to return - in other words,
an Israel which would take the intiative and demonstrate her oft-proclaimed but never
practiced willingness to make peace, would go a large part of the way towards breaking
down the natural distrust of the Arab states.
Let Israel acknowledge responsibility, offer available redress, and undertake revision
of the ambitions which involve continued enmity with its neighbors - including the difficult
but necessary work of restating the ideal of Zion in universal terms - and a new era of
hope begins. Such an Israel would win as well the good will - yes, even the gratitude - of a
world on the verge of a disastrous conflict of which Israel would, in the perspective of history,
be the chief author.
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R003800050011-6
-6-
 Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R003800050011-6
Note by Dr. Gildersleeve
It is encouraging to observe that a recent peace proposal by a group of twenty-five leading
Americans, headed by Dr. Clarence E. Pickett, President of the American Friends Service Committee
-that most respected of relief agencies - offers much the same solution for the present impasse as
does Professor Hocking. Somehow the U.S.A., her sponsor, must persuade Israel to take some
such positive action toward peace.
To break this Arab-Israeli deadlock some unpalatable things must be done, by the Israelis,
by the U.S.A. , by the U.N., as well as by the Arabs. Working through the U. N. J1 the U.S.A.
was able, after Israel's invasion of Egypt, to induce her to evacuate Gaza and Sinai. In
the same way we can doubtless persuade her to initiate some peaceful action now.
This would be greatly to her advantage. At present she lives in an armed camp surrounded
by neighbors who hate, fear, and boycott her, and whom her military forces have five tunes
attacked (according to U.N. rulings). Should war break out again between Israel andanArab
state, Russia is apparently sure to come to the aid of the Arabs and we are committed to come to
the defense of Israel. In the resulting holocaust what is likely to happen to Israel? And to the
U.S.A. ?
But if, instead of continuing to present to the Arabs a face of implacable hostility,
of political and territorial rigidty, Israel shows some real desire to'settledown in the Middle East
as a good neighbor, and takes positive steps to implement this desire, then the Arab States may
well recognize her and lift the boycott which largely strangles her economy, and Israel can
become a self-supporting nation, no longer precariously dependent on gifts from without, but
strong in her own resources, trade and great abilities. And in this new psychological climate
the United States can help generously to plan and carry out the economic development of the
whole Middle East region, bringing a better life to Arabs and Israelis alike.
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R003800050011-6
 Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : 80B01676R003800050011-6
CLARENCE E. PICKETT
Commonwealth Building, Twelfth & Chestnut Streets,
Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania.
The President of the United States,
The White House,
Washington, D. C.
To establish political and economic stability in the Middle East it is
essential that a peace treaty be negotiated between Israel and the neighboring
Arab States. To this end agreement on the following issues is basic:
1. The problem of the Arab refugees should be resolved by permitting a
limited number to resettle in Israel, and by offering equitable compensation to
all of them for property lost or left behind. Resettlement of the. refugees, both
of those who return to Israel and of those who decide not to return, should be
facilitated by an international loan administered through a United Nations Agency.
2. Definitive borders between Israel and its neighbors should be established,
straightening the lines between the borders recommended by the United Nations in
1947 and those established by the armistice agreements of 1948.
3. The city of Jerusalem and the surrounding villages should become an inter-
nationally administered territory under the trusteeship of the United Nations in
accord with the recommendation made by the General Assembly in 1947, both the Arab
States and Israel participating. in the administration.
4. Once peace is established, special consideration should be given to economic
development projects for raising the standard of living of the entire region for the
benefit of all its inhabitants. One of these projects is the harnessing and utiliz-
ation of the waters of the Jordan River.
5. To achieve such a peace the United States should initiate in the United
Nations an effort to obtain a consensus including all the principal powers.
Respectfully yours,
(Signed by) Clarence E. Pickett
December 3, 1957
Co-signers
William H, Baldwin
Vice Adm. Daniel E. Barbey, Ret.
Dean Harry J. Carman
Malcolm W. Davis
George B. Ford
Oscar, W. Haussermann
August Heckscher
Bishop Henry W. Hobson
Paul G. Hoffman
James Kerney, Jr.
John LaFarge, S.J.
Chester J. LaRoche
Dr. Henry Smith Leiper
Goodhue Livingston, Jr.
Henry R. Luce
Dr. Robert M. Maclver
John Nuveen
Henry V. Poor
Prof. A. J. G. Priest
Dr. James T. Shotwell
Theodore C. Streibert
Dr. Henry P. VanDusen
William W. Waymack
William L. White
Prof. Quincy Wright
Approved For Release 2002/02/27 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800050011-6