United States officials denied today London reports that differences had developed between Washington and Britain on the issue of Israeli withdrawal from cease-fire lines. The reports alleged that the British line is increasingly pro-Arab with the American view closer to the Israeli position.
The British were said to insist on the earliest possible Israeli withdrawal with no leeway for territorial adjustments. London’s motivation appeared to be British oil requirements for the coming winter and the continued closure of the Suez Canal. The British Foreign Office was said to envisage a United Nations mediator appointed by the Secretary-General and a formula based on discussions under the 1948 armistice agreement.
The United States view was reported to be the same as expressed by President Johnson in June. Apparently, the Washington position remains that a lasting settlement requires some form of direct Arab-Israeli negotiations and that there can be no return merely to the pre-June situation.
Washington was said in the reports to have told London that there could be no return to the old situation because the previous frontiers were never recognized in peace treaties. Since the 1949 armistice was never implemented by peace treaties, Washington was said to see no value in negotiations based on the resumption of the old armistice.
Defense Department sources indicated meanwhile that Washington was not anxious to reopen the Suez Canal because it was an important channel for the flow of Soviet munitions from Black Sea ports to Haiphong in North Vietnam.
State Department authorities said Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg is meeting at the United Nations with Egyptian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Riad to follow up talks held recently between Secretary of State Dean Rusk and the Egyptians. Mr. Goldberg is said to be seeking direct negotiations but also exploring a settlement through a third party.
While spokesmen for both Britain and the United States insisted that no split had developed over accommodation with Nasser, it was apparent that the interests of the two nations differed. The anxiety of London to re-open the canal at Israel’s expense did not appear shared in Washington, U.S. policy seemed to take a broader and more relaxed view of the situation.
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.
