Tell Rogers Jews Fear U.S. Policy Drift is Away from Negotiated Mideast Peace

The chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations told Secretary of State William P. Rogers today that American Jews were “deeply worried” about “the apparent drift in United States policy on the Middle East away from an insistence on a negotiated peace between the Arab states and Israel.” Rabbi Herschel Schacter of New York, heading a delegation of 22 Jewish leaders meeting with Secretary Rogers, voiced “concern and agitation” over the prospect that current Four Power talks would “absolve the Arab states from their responsibility to settle their differences directly with Israel.”

Rabbi Schacter told Mr. Rogers: “If King Hussein is serious about his six-point plan (proposed last week), let him call a halt to terrorism and immediately enter into talks with Israel. This is the only true way of effectively implementing the United Nations Nov. 22, 1967 resolution. The test of the Arab desire for peace with Israel is a willingness to talk peace with Israel,” he added. “Such direct talks should be the direction and goal of American policy in the Mideast. Anything else will encourage the intransigence of the Arab governments in rejecting all constructive proposals for negotiations leading to an agreed and lasting peace.”

The meeting, held at Secretary Rogers’ invitation, was an outgrowth of the National Leadership Conference on Peace in the Middle East held in New York in March. Rabbi Schacter gave Mr. Rogers a copy of a resolution unanimously adopted at the parley which declared that U.S. Jews were “united and resolute as never before in support of Israel’s determination to exercise the inalienable right of self-defense and to pursue a lasting peace within secure and recognized boundaries.”

HINTS OF PRESSURE TO FORCE ACCEPTANCE OF BIG FOUR TERMS DEEPEN CONCERN

Rabbi Schacter said that U.S. Jews were “worried” about the Nixon Administration’s entry into Four Power talks with Britain, France and the Soviet Union. This uneasiness, he said, had been “deepened” by Mr. Rogers press conference statement last week that “the force of public opinion” would be used to bring about a Mideast settlement and by the “failure to condemn terrorist activity in the joint statement issued by President Nixon and King Hussein” following the monarch’s visit here last week.

(Mr. Rogers also told the press last week that the governments of the Mideast “would want to think long and hard before they turned (a Big Four agreement on a formula for a settlement) down”. He also said that the U.S. does “not intend and will not seek to impose a settlement on Israel.” The Secretary had been questioned about the differences between an imposed and “recommended” peace. He said that “there are lots of ways to influence people” without forcing them to comply. He pointed out that the international community exercises influences so powerful that the Mideast governments cannot ignore them.)

Rabbi Schacter told Secretary Rogers that the “Arab governments are seeking to conjure up a false threat of immediate conflagration in the Mideast. They hope and expect that the Big Four, appalled by such a prospect, will join forces in an effort to bring about Israel’s withdrawal from the areas which have come under its administration since the Six-Day War.” He added, “Only a full and final peace, freely arrived at by the parties themselves, can open a new chapter between the belligerents and be a blessing to the Middle East and the world.”

ROGERS AFFIRMS THAT U.S. POLICY ON MIDDLE EAST HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED

Secretary Rogers reassured the delegation that there was “no substantive change” in the American Middle East policy involving Israel, Rabbi Schacter reported after the meeting. He quoted the secretary as declaring that any peace must be “juridically defined” and “contractually binding.” Mr. Rogers stressed, Rabbi Schacter said, that there would be no phased withdrawal without a total package settlement.

In the meeting, which Rabbi Schacter described as “a cordial exchange of ideas,” the Secretary of State reiterated his statement on Middle East policy which he had made to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and assured the delegation that there had been no change.