United States interests in the Middle East “clearly lie with Israel,” and the U.S. must help prevent Soviet ground action on the Arab’s behalf because it would “upset the entire balance in the region.” But Israel must in turn agree to a peace settlement that would include withdrawal from the occupied territories and the demilitarization of Sinal and the Golan Heights. These are the conclusions of John Scott, special correspondent and assistant to the publisher of Time Magazine, in a 132-page report titled “The Middle East at War,” released today to the press.
Relying on personal observations and interviews throughout the Mideast last year, Mr. Scott declares that Israel has a right to exist because “The fact is that the UN and most of the world’s nations, including the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had recognized the State of Israel by 1949, and the issue should have been closed at that time.” In addition, “By failing to resign from the UN after Israel was admitted, the Arab governments de facto recognized the existence of Israel as a legitimate nation.” Mr. Scott criticizes the United Nations for withdrawing its Mideast forces at Egypt’s request; for settling for a ceasefire instead of “Imposing real peace,” and for feeding the refugees and thus permitting them to live in “isolated, parasitic enclaves for 20 years,” building up hatred for Israel.
ARABS URGED TO NEGOTIATE WITH ISRAEL; AIM OF ISRAEL IS PEACE WITH SECURITY
“The UN,” he states, “well-meaningly blundered onto a course of action which has proved counter-effective and has made the refugees an obstacle to any permanent solution.” The writer recommends the creation of “a new Palestinian state,” comprising the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and mainly-Arab parts of the pre-1967 Israel. Israel and Jordan would guarantee the new state’s security and the UN refugee camps would be closed, Mr. Scott’s proposed peace plan would also include universal freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal and adjacent waterways; Moslem-Christian-Jewish control of Jerusalem; mutual recognition of all Mideast states and the initiation of arms-reduction talks with Big Four observation. Mr. Scott recommends that the Arabs agree to negotiations with Israel. While direct talks would be “politically awkward” for President Gamal Abdel Nasser, “in the world of political reality men are often forced to do awkward and unpleasant things.”
While the Arabs “have not necessarily lost the war” despite having lost “three decisive battles,” Mr. Scott notes, it is “(a) fact that the Arabs have been talking about destroying Israel for 20 years without ever coming close to so doing.” If Egypt did not agree to talks and were subsequently defeated again by Israel, the Russians might be forced to “abandon their expensive support of the Arabs.” leaving them “disarmed and bankrupt.” Yet the correspondent does not believe that the Kremlin will “allow” the Arabs to start another war and it is “equally unlikely” that Israel will declare one. He concludes, “Israel wants peace with security, the Russians want the continuation of a semi-war, and the Arabs want victory. In this simplistic equation, our interests clearly lie with Israel.”
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.
