U.S. Balks at Eden’s Mid-east Proposal; Sharett Calls It “ill Advised”

Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden’s proposal for mediation between Israel and the Arab states on the basis of a “compromise” whereby Israel would be required to make territorial concessions was “ill advised.” Israel’s Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett declared here at a luncheon tendered him by the United Nations Correspondents Association.

(From Washington the New York Times reported that the United States and Britain “see eye to eye on the imperative necessity” of resolving the Middle Eastern crisis but not necessarily on the methods that should be used. This, the Times says, became evident when the State Department, in response to inquiries, issued a statement with regard to Prime Minister Eden’s offer to mediate between Israel and the Arab states. The American statement supported Sir Anthony’s intentions but not necessarily his specific proposals. The key to the United States-British difference lies in Sir Anthony’s suggestion that Israel and the Arab states “compromise” their boundary disputes, the Times report emphasized.)

Mr. Sharett said that “the demarcation lines along the Israel-Arab frontiers can be altered, but only by mutual consent, and not by force. There might be mutual adjustments if the Arabs and the Israelis met within the framework of the armistice agreements,” he stated. Among some of the statements made by Mr. Sharett, in addition to his comment about Sir Anthony’s proposal were:

1. “What the Russians hope to gain by the Czech arms deal with Egypt is a foothold of influence in the Middle East to counter Western moves which they see as a potential danger.”

2. “The generous financial support given Israel development by contributors in the United States is an indication of the hopefulness and the confidence in Israel’s future, and not a sign of Israel’s economic weakness. Israel might require less assistance for development purposes if it had peace and consequently had to spend less for its defense forces.”

3. “A United States security treaty with Israel would, presumably, act as a deter rent of aggression against Israel.”

Mr. Sharett explained that the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, announced by the United States, Britain and France, was based on two principles: maintenance of the status quo territorially, and maintenance of the balance of arms in the Middle East. “The second principle had been negated in part by Britain’s grants of arms to Iraq,” he pointed out. “The Declaration is an instrument imposed from above, without consultation with the countries affected. Its logical follow-up should be the conclusion of a security treaty imposing obligations mutually agreed upon among the nations concerned,” he stressed.