British Foreign Secretary Calls for Israel’s Withdrawal to Pre-1967 Borders

The British government’s first definitive statement on the Middle East since the Conservative Party took office earlier this year left Israeli and pro-Israel circles here shocked and angered over what they consider a “serious erosion” of Britain’s position from the spirit of the Security Council’s Nov. 22, 1967 resolution on the Mideast. Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home outlined his government’s stand in a speech at Harrogate yesterday. It envisages Israel’s withdrawal from all of the occupied Arab territories, in effect a return to the pre-June 5,1967 borders with only “minor” alterations of Israel’s old frontier with Jordan. Sir Alec specifically included the Golan Heights as an area Israel must eventually evacuate, hinted that the status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be settled and proposed the return of those Palestinian refugees who wish to, to their former homes if they show that they are prepared to live peacefully with their neighbors. Sir Alec’s speech stressed the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” In that emphasis and on other points it resembled the Mideast peace plan advanced last December by United States Secretary of State William P. Rogers which aroused Israeli ire at the time. Israeli circles here appeared especially chagrined at the timing of Sir Alec’s speech which was delivered only three days before the arrival here of Premier Golda Meir for talks with Prime Minister Edward Heath.

Mrs. Meir was reported “deeply disturbed” when Sir Alec’s speech was relayed to her in New York yesterday. She is expected to demand a clarification when she meets Mr. Heath on Wednesday. Sir Alec made his statement two days after winding up talks here with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei A. Gromyko. The Middle East was described as an important subject on their agenda but not the major one. The official communique issued by the Foreign Office Thursday night stressed the importance of a political settlement within the framework of the Security Council’s Resolution 242 of Nov. 22, 1967 and the resumption of the Jarring peace talks at the earliest possible date. The communique also called for both sides to extend the Suez cease-fire “for a period to be determined.” According to reliable sources here, the British government leaned toward the Soviet view with regard to Egyptian violations of the cease-fire. The British position reportedly was that these should be ignored in the interests of the Jarring talks on the grounds that a successful outcome of the talks would make the issue irrelevant. It was reportedly made clear to the Soviet Foreign Minister however that Britain’s motives and methods differ greatly from those of the Soviet Union. Sir Alec stressed in his speech that Britain wants to maintain friendship with Israel and “cannot accept a program which would involve disappearance of the State of Israel, as the Palestinian organizations demand,”

SIR ALEC, LIKE YOST SEVERAL DAYS EARLIER, URGES RECOGNITION OF PALESTINIAN RIGHTS

He added, however, “We must work for a settlement which will attract the agreement of all peoples in the area including the Palestinians and take account of their legitimate aspirations.” Sir Alec said, in connection with the refugees, that those who wish to return to their homes and were prepared to live in peace with their neighbors should do so while those who chose not to return should be enabled to settle elsewhere with compensation. He added that Britain should not “ignore the political aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs and their desire to be given means of self expression.” His call for the recognition of the rights of the Palestinians appeared to dovetail the statement by United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Charles W. Yost, who, in his address Thursday to the General Assembly, declared that the U.S. recognized that the “legitimate concerns and aspirations” of the Palestinians must be taken into account if there is to be peace in the Middle East. Mr. Yost added that the U.S. had no preconceived idea as to the form Palestinian participation would take in a settlement. Sir Alec’s statement on the refugees was almost totally at variance with Israel’s views. Israeli sources here said his proposal that the refugee issue be solved only after other issues represented a “step backward” inasmuch as UN mediator Gunnar Jarring, in earlier negotiations, had already reached an agreement that the refugee problem be part of an overall “package deal.”

STATEMENT SEEMS TO SHATTER HOPE THAT CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE PRO-ISRAEL

Israeli sources also took sharp issue with the British Foreign Secretary’s failure to mention demilitarization of occupied territories after Israeli withdrawal or “binding and reciprocal agreements” between the two sides. They were particularly angered by his failure to insist on the principle of an undivided Jerusalem. Sir Alec said in that connection that the future of Jerusalem needs some further agreement, particularly regarding freedom of access to the holy places which he described as an “essential part of any settlement.” The Israelis maintain that as long as Jerusalem is united under their rule, no problems exist with regard to access to the holy places. Especially ominous from Israel’s

A spokesman for the Israeli Embassy here noted today that Sir Alec said that no outside powers could prescribe exactly where “secure and recognized boundaries” should be between Israel and its neighbors as this was a matter for the parties themselves to determine. The spokesman said Israel’s position on its future boundaries will be determined by its vital security needs. Israeli sources were also disturbed by Sir Alec’s failure to mention “freedom of navigation.” He spoke only of guarantees of passage through the Straits of Tiran, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Suez Canal. The Egyptians have always refused to acknowledge that these were international waterways, the Israelis pointed out. Sir Alec however called for binding agreements between Israel and the Arab states including the obligation of all states to refrain from acts of hostility and to do all in their power to prevent such acts. Sir Alec referred in passing to violations of the Suez cease-fire. He said, “I believe that simultaneous efforts should be made by all concerned to grasp the opportunity to make peace which I think exists.” Sir Alec’s statement apparently came as a big disappointment to those who thought the Conservative government would adopt a Mideast policy more in line with Israel’s interests than the policies followed by its predecessor Labor government. One Israeli spokesman remarked today, “An unfriendly attitude toward Israel has become bi-partisan British doctrine.”