Secretary of State William P. Rogers has made it clear that the United States government position on the Middle East has not changed since November, 1967. Calling for “active negotiations” between Egypt and Israel, he told a news conference Friday that he saw talks toward an interim agreement to reopen the Suez Canal “a prospect for a successful beginning to a complete solution in the Middle East.” He also made it plain he still favored his Dec. 9, 1969 stand for no more than minor changes in the pre-Six-Day War borders.
In his first detailed discussion of the Mideast since the Soviet forces began withdrawing from Egypt last month, Rogers said that the United States thinks that talks toward a cannel agreement “provide maybe the most bright prospect for progress in that area.” He said he would not comment “at this time” on the significance of the Soviet withdrawal, but observed: “We do believe that the decision was made by Egypt as a matter of internal affairs.” Asked whether Israel can afford to make greater concessions in a territorial pullback with Soviet forces absent from the Suez area, Rogers replied: “I would not want to make comments. That is a matter for the government of Israel to decide.”
Rogers made it clear that the US continues to base its policy on Resolution 242 adopted by the United Nations Security Council nearly five years ago; and that despite Soviet reduction of its military presence in Egypt, US policy has not changed. Asked whether the territorial policy he pronounced for the US on Dec. 9, 1969, still stands, the Secretary declared: “We have been consistent. We have not changed.” Asked then if that meant “you continue to say that any changes in the Middle East should involve only insubstantial alteration of territory,” he responded: “As I say, because of the colloquy that has existed over the years, I am just saying that our position is the same. It has not changed any. I don’t want to pick out any particular portion of it and refer to it alone.”
Rogers said Resolution 242 “provides the foundation, I think the only foundation, for the possibility of a peaceful solution in the area.” In calling for “active negotiations,” Rogers said: “I am not necessarily at this stage talking about direct, face-to-face negotiations, but negotiations, active negotiations. If progress is made in those negotiations, then the parties would have to negotiate eventually directly, because it makes sense, if they are going to get along together, to negotiate directly. But in any event, we think it is vitally important now that active negotiations be undertaken.” Rogers reiterated his view that the Mideast is the only trouble spot “where discussions are not undertaken by the parties.” He added: “If we can play a useful role in negotiations, we are prepared to play it. On the whole, we think the situation is relatively stable and we hope the cease-fire continues.”
Rogers denied he was backing away from endorsement of direct negotiations between Israel and Egypt. He noted that in Kuwait recently, “I did say that I understand it might be difficult for Egypt to engage in direct negotiations to begin with and we would hope that, if that was the case, that at least they would start in these proximity talks or some other way. In other words, we are very convinced that active negotiations, so that there is an active exchange of views on these subjects, is vital. Now, what form is followed is up to the parties.”
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
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.
