Two United States Senators–James L. Buckley, New York Conservative and Henry M. Jackson, Washington Democrat, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations. Yosef Tekoah, and Rabbi Israel Miller, national president of the American Zionist Federation, agreed tonight that Israel could not, would not, and should not yield to any pressures, even from the U.S. government, that would threaten its security. They spoke before 3,000 persons at Carnegie Hall attending the 23rd birthday celebration of the State of Israel. In remarks prepared for tonight’s celebration, Buckley, pointing out that national security is basic to any nation, said that “Israel, looking out from inside her small acreage, sees her present supreme need in this respect as a physical border arrangement that will ensure the strongest possible position for military defense by the only military force on which she feels certain she can always rely that is to say, her own.” The New York Senator said it follows, therefore, that it should be understood by all seeking ultimate peace in this troubled area that it would be unreasonable to ask Israel to rely once again on paper guarantees or the illusory sort of multi-national effort whose failure led to the Six-Day War. “The definition of such secure borders can only be arrived at through negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbors. Such negotiations will require good faith and compromise by all sides if agreement is to be reached and the conditions for peace secured.”
Jackson, in a prepared statement, noting Israel’s determination that it will not be another Czechoslovakia, to be sacrificed by the great powers in the name of political expediency, stated that “We in the U.S. and we alone are in a position to help them maintain the precarious balance in the Middle East.” The Senator said it was his view that the U.S. had a “vital interest in the security of Israel” and in the “peace and stability” of the Middle East which is now threatened by the aggressive ambition of the Soviet Union.” Continuing, Jackson declared: “Nothing is so likely to facilitate Soviet policy in the Middle East as a settlement that leaves Israel in the exposed and vulnerable position that existed prior to the Six-Day War. Such a settlement would guarantee that the tensions and insecurity on which Soviet policy is based would continue to be exploited with tragic consequences for Arab and Israeli alike. We must not be a party to such a settlement.” A secure and stabilizing settlement lies in a negotiated map of Israel with secure and recognized borders whose defense can be assured by the Israelis themselves, Jackson declared. “And such a settlement would call for the phased withdrawal of Russian military personnel from Egypt. This, perhaps more than any other arrangement, would bring a measure of stability to the Middle East. I believe that Israeli withdrawal to defensible borders should proceed in parallel with Soviet withdrawal from Egypt.”
TEKOAH: PEACE REQUIRES SECURE BORDERS; MILLER: OFFICERS OWN VERSION OF ROGERS’ PLAN
Tekoah, explaining Israel’s stand on security, said that “Israel has too much to preserve and too much to live up to, to falter.” He stated that the Arab governments and the world must realize that “the attainment of peace in the Middle East requires the full satisfaction of Israel’s security interests.” He warned that “Arab belligerency persists and Arab intransigence is still being encouraged and assisted by outside forces,” adding that the great powers and international organizations still erroneously believe that the idea that Israel might yet agree to a settlement “contrary to its will and interests has not yet been abandoned.” Tekoah added that “the Arab peoples need peace as much as Israel, and it peace necessitates accepting the continuation of Israel’s hold over such places as Sharm el-Sheikh or Gaza, the Arab peoples will accept it. The decision is in the hands of their leaders. Israel’s control over Sharm el-Sheikh is less problematic a step for Egypt than renouncing the destruction of Israel and expressing willingness to conclude a peace agreement with it.”
Commenting on Secretary of State William P. Rogers’ impending visit to Israel, Rabbi Miller said, that he has his “own plan for Mr. Rogers.” Calling it a plan for Israel’s security, Rabbi Miller said, “In my plan for Mr. Rogers, I hope he would see Jerusalem united, with access by all faiths to their holy places; would look down from the Golan Heights upon the exposed settlements; would travel through the west bank and see Israel’s civilized relationship with the Arabs as well as its old vulnerable borders; would look across the narrow straits from Sharm el-Sheikh and see how Israel’s life line could be so easily choked off. If this ‘Rogers Plan’ can be effected, I feel reasonably certain that the other will cease to be.” In a cabled message to Rabbi Miller. President Zalman Shazar reiterated Israel’s “dearly bought conviction that we are not accepting peace arrangements that will not truly guarantee peace.” He also re-emphasized Israel’s “awareness of the indispensability of Zionist devotion in these fateful times when every new group of tragic and heroic olim (immigrants) revindicates the overwhelming relevance of Zionism. The celebration was sponsored by the American Zionist Federation.
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.
