Schlesinger Says if He Were Responsible for Israel’s Strategy He Would Be Inclined to Resist Withdra

Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger said here last night that if he were responsible for Israel’s strategy he would be “inclined to resist withdrawal” of Israeli forces from the Golan Heights and the West Bank as long as the Arab nations refused to concede Israel’s right to exist. Neither Schlesinger nor his interviewer mentioned the Sinai in this connection. He also indicated the Soviet Union would probably back the “more radical demands” of the Arabs against Israel in a Geneva conference.

Schlesinger’s comments came during a television interview in which he disclosed that the United States would make no “new commitments” on military supply for Israel pending completion of President Ford’s current review of U.S. policy towards the Middle East in general.

A Pentagon spokesman pointed out to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the review includes “all the countries” of the area now receiving U.S. military equipment. They include particularly Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The State Department confirmed today that no policy decision on foreign aid will be made while the reassessment is under way.

AID PROGRAM WILL NOT BE KNOWN TILL MAY

President Ford is scheduled to go before a joint session of the Senate and House either April 9 or 10 to discuss U.S. foreign policy which would embrace the Southeast Asia situation as well as the Middle East, Portugal and the Cyprus problems. His address is expected to include elements of his review.

The foreign aid program for the current U.S. fiscal year ending June 30 carries $200 million in credit and a $100 million grant to Israel for military purchases. Whether full aid will continue was not immediately known but Schlesinger said that the U.S. had carried out “virtually” all of “a very substantial shipment” of military supplies to Israel during the fall and winter period that ended today.

For the new fiscal year beginning July 1, Israel is understood to have asked for about $2.5 billion in aid, of which approximately $1.8 billion is for military equipment. This figure was questioned by Administration and Congressional sources long before the breakdown of Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger’s effort for a second Egyptian-Israeli agreement.

While ordinarily the Administration presents its new aid program to Congress by mid March, it was postponed this year to mid-April and now is not expected to be disclosed before May 1, that is, until after the President’s review is completed and its meaning well understood here and abroad, It is not ruled out that the new program may well include substantial forms of military equipment for Egypt in the U.S. effort to woo Egypt from the Soviet grasp.

Schlesinger’s appearance yesterday on station WETA of the Public Broadcasting System marked his first comments on the Middle East since Kissinger’s return from Jerusalem March 23. After saying that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s statement on reopening of the Suez Canal in June was “a surprising conciliatory step,” and that he was “happy” with Sadat’s pledge to extend the mandate of the UN forces in the Sinai for three more months, Schlesinger was asked to comment on Kissinger’s news conference statement last week that the United States is committed to Israel’s survival.

SURVIVAL PART OF REASSESSMENT

Schlesinger replied that “is an issue that would have to be dealt with” in the “reassessment” of American policy towards the Middle East and then he added: “What the Secretary (Kissinger) did say was survival of Israel remains an objective of American policy–a commitment of American policy, but the precise measures to achieve that objective were not specified.”

Schlesinger was asked whether, if he were handling Israel’s strategy he would withdraw Israeli forces from the Golan Heights or yield military control of the West Bank without “a complete transformation of Arab political attitudes toward Israel–more specifically, a guarantee or a recognition on the part of the Arabs that Israel has a right to survive.”

“I suspect if I were in the position that you suggest that I would be inclined to resist withdrawal,” Schlesinger replied. “On the other hand I think that it is necessary to recognize that some suitable adjustments must be made and what precisely those adjustments must be depends on the judgement of the Israelis as well as the others.”

On whether Israel should have been “more flexible” in the second Kissinger round with Cairo and Jerusalem, Schlesinger said he thought the “failure of the negotiations, of course, are having a detrimental effect on Israel as it does on the general situation in the Middle East, but since I don’t know the details I am not in a position to assess responsibility.”