Eban Dismisses As ‘frivolous’ Jordanian and Egyptian Demands to Return to 1947 Lines

Foreign Minister Abba Eban told the press today that Egypt and Jordan had replied to a questionnaire on peace from United Nations special envoy Gunnar V. Jarring by demanding Israel’s return to the borders envisioned for a Jewish state by the United Nations’ 1947 Palestine partition plan–a plan rejected at the time by all Arab states. He dismissed the demand as “quite frivolous” and reiterated Israeli resistance to any efforts to force its withdrawal even to the boundaries that existed before the 1967 war.

(Mr. Eban did not divulge the contents of the Arab replies to Dr. Jarring. Jordan’s Ambassador to the UN, Mohammed H. el-Farra, said in New York last week that the 1947 partition boundaries had been mentioned in Amman’s reply. He added that there was not “one iota of difference between Cairo and Amman” on such questions.)

Mr. Eban disclosed that Israel was investigating reports that American oil companies operating in the Mideast had provided financial aid to Arab terrorists. He said it was well known that the oil producing Arab countries were the terrorists’ main financial source. (Syndicated columnists Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson reported last week that there were indications that U.S. oil companies have contributed heavily to the support of guerrillas despite their denials. The columnists claimed that oil company employees who contributed had been reimbursed from corporate funds, and said the oil companies had been under heavy pressure from Arab governments and from terrorist organizations to render financial aid.)

Referring to King Hussein’s six-point peace plan enunciated in Washington last week, including a pledge to Israel of free navigation through the Suez Canal, Mr. Eban questioned the King’s credentials as a spokesman for President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. He asked whether Hassanein Heikal, editor of the Cairo newspaper Al Ahram and a close confidant of Col. Nasser was not more qualified as a spokesman. Mr. Heikal last week urged the Egyptian Army to make a foray into the Sinai Peninsula and destroy several Israeli divisions. (Al Ahram objected to King Hussein’s offer to open the canal to Israeli shipping as part of a settlement. The paper, which generally reflects the Nasser regimes gime’s views insisted that Israeli ships would be granted use of the waterway only after all the demands of a million Palestinian refugees had been met. The paper refrained from direct criticism of King Hussein but said the issue of Suez passage rights for Israel “bears no relation to the 1967 war or the liquidation of its consequences.” King Hussein had said in his address to the National Press Club last Thursday that he spoke with the personal authority of Col. Nasser. The King also declared that the “crux” of the deadlock was the refugees’ plight. “Once(their) rights have been restored–by Israel’s acceptance of their right to repatriation or compensation–then the final step toward peace will not be far off.”)

REITERATES DEMAND FOR NEGOTIATIONS; SAYS U.S., ISRAEL HAVE NOT PARTED

Mr. Eban said his Government would remain alert to any sign of peace but insisted that peace must be negotiated. He said he had no information that would indicate a U.S. drift from Israel’s position since he discussed the Mideast situation in Washington last month. He said that the U.S. and Israel never held exactly the same views but were always against the same concepts–a return to the 1949 armistice lines or confusion of an armistice or other temporary arrangement with peace. Both countries, he said, favored a contractual agreement between the parties to the conflict but still disagreed on holding Four Power talks.

Mr. Eban defined Israel’s concept of non-belligerency, which King Hussein had advocated. He said it must include all maritime interference and economic boycott measures and that there must be no alliances between states declaring themselves non-belligerent and those that are belligerent. The latter must not be permitted to station troops on the soil of non-belligerent states nor should any terrorist groups be allowed to operate from the territory of non-belligerents, he said.

Mr. Eban rejected the linking of freedom on navigation through Suez with any long-term problem such as that of the Palestinian refugees. Asked on what points King Hussein’s Washington proposals differed from the UN Security Council’s Nov. 22, 1967 Mideast resolution, Mr. Eban said the resolution’s operative clauses demanded a negotiated agreement between the sides. He said the Security Council had expressly dissociated itself from consideration of the 1949 armistice lines as frontiers and had used a new term–“secure and agreed frontiers.”

MRS. MEIR REJECTS BIG 4 EFFORTS, FINDS NO VALUE IN HUSSEIN PROPOSALS

Addressing a Labor Party rally in Tel Aviv, earlier, Premier Golda Meir sharply rejected the Big Four efforts to find a Mideast solution because, she maintained, the cards were stacked against Israel. “While Moscow as well as President Charles de Gaulle and his Government–I do not say the French people–are pro-Arab… the United States and Great Britain, though friends of Israel, are equally friends of the Arabs and take into account Arab interests,” Mrs. Meir said. She dismissed King Hus-

Other officials say there is nothing new in the Hussein proposals and have dismissed them as a propaganda ploy. They say that, under the guise of a new peace plan, he reiterated his old demand for withdrawal from the territories occupied in the 1967 war to the old 1949 armistice lines. Foreign Ministry circles commented that the place to offer peace settlements was not the rostrum of the National Press Club but the negotiating table. (State Department officials have welcomed the King’s Suez proposal and regard it as a new element in the diplomatic picture. Presidential spokesman Herbert Klein said Friday that President Richard M. Nixon was pleased by the King’s “peace plan.” White House spokesman Ronald Ziegler disclosed that when Mr. Nixon met Friday with Mahmoud Fawzi, personal diplomatic representative of Col. Nasser, they discussed a mutual “desire to improve relations.” Dr. Fawzi also met with Secretary of State William P. Rogers and other high Administration officials. White House sources said there was still no agreement on when the two nations would restore diplomatic ties which Col. Nasser severed during the 1967 war.)