Secretary of State Dean Rush today reiterated an Administration view that Israel must offer an option of repatriation or compensation to Palestinian Arab refugees.
Mr. Rusk simultaneously justified the termination this year of United States grant aid to Israel by citing Israel’s annual economic growth rate and “ability to administer a technical assistance program” benefiting various African and Asian nations. The Secretary of State made known his thinking on Israel in a letter to Rep. John J. Rooney, New York Democrat.
“With respect to a possible solution of the Arab refugee problem, Secretary Rusk said, “the United States continues to support some reasonable implementation of paragraph 11 of the United Nations resolution which provides for the refugees the option of repatriation as law-abiding citizens of Israel or of compensation for those who do not wish to return.”
The Secretary added that “any repatriation would, in our view, have to be so implemented as to take fully into account Israel’s legitimate security and economic requirements. Contrary to press reports, the Administration has made no suggestion either to Israel or to the Arab states of any specific number of refugees who should be repatriated. Nor does the Department have a specific plan in mind, but believes that, consistent with the U.N. General Assembly resolution mentioned…and the sentiments of Congress, the problem deserves our earnest study at this time.”
While the United States insists that Arab refugees be given an option to return, Secretary Rusk said reports “that we expect Israel to receive Arabs in a manner or in numbers to threaten her security are without foundation.”
SUGGESTS SHIFTING U.S. AID TO ISRAEL TO THE LOAN CATEGORY
Mr. Rusk suggested that the grant aid component in the U.S. assistance program for Israel should be shifted to the loan category under the new “aid for international development” program. He pointed out that “Israel has an annual growth rate of eight per cent, a per capita income of something more than $1,000 per annum, and an ability to administer a technical assistance program of its own for the benefit of a number of other countries.”
He said these developments support the view that U.S. aid to Israel should now be placed on the basis of loans and surplus commodities “rather than grants”. He said that precise programs were yet to be determined but gave assurance “this Administration has no intention of reducing the volume.”
Rep. Rooney made known to Mr. Rusk that he does not see how anyone could expect Israel to repatriate any substantial number of Arabs in advance of a peace settlement. “The U.N. resolution of 1948, which is always cited in this connection, clearly intended that repatriation should come in the context of peace negotiations, and as long as Arab leaders refuse to negotiate with Israel and persist in the threat of war, it is most unlikely that Israel would open its doors to potential enemies.”
Rep. Rooney told Mr. Rusk: “It is wrong to foster the illusion in the minds of the Arab refugees that we really believe that the primary and initial burden rests on Israel and that we are indifferent to her security and survival. If we persist in this line, the Arabs will never be willing to accept any resettlement. This would prove a disservice to the best interests of the refugees themselves and would make it necessary for us to continue the U.N.R.W.A. appropriations indefinitely—a burden we have no right to impose on our taxpayers without the promise of progress.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
