Ford’s Remarks on Mideast Viewed As Almost an Invitation to Arabs to Harden Their Position; Encourag

President Ford’s remarks on the Middle East last night were viewed by some observers here today as re-statement of the long muted American policy of “even-handedness” in the Arab-Israeli conflict and as almost an invitation to the Arabs to harden their position. They felt also that the President’s reference to the inevitability of another oil embargo in the event of a new Middle East war clearly encouraged the Arabs to employ their oil weapon to force the U.S. to apply stronger pressure on Israel for territorial concessions.

The President made his remarks on the Middle East in the course of an hour-long interview in the Blue Room of the White House with three CBS reporters which was broadcast live on national television and radio.

Commenting on the President’s statements, Rabbi Israel Miller, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations said in New York today: “We are concerned lest the Arab governments misread and misinterpret the President’s remarks as an invitation to harden their line, to re-institute the oil embargo and to adopt policies that will lead to still another Arab attempt at the military destruction of Israel.

“At the same time, we share the President’s sentiments that progress toward peace in the Middle East must not be interrupted and that the good offices of the United States are essential for resuming the momentum toward peace that led to the first disengagement agreement.”

NO OFFICIAL REACTION IN ISRAEL

(There was no official reaction in Israel today to Ford’s remarks and political circles in Jerusalem were wary of comment. Foreign Minister Yigal Allon who returned from the U.S. only this morning made no reference to the Ford interview. Sources in Jerusalem said he may not have been aware of its contents and certainly had not had a chance to study its full text.)

(Unofficially, however, observers in Jerusalem were particularly disturbed by Ford’s implication that any future meeting he may hold with Premier Yitzhak Rabin would be balanced by meetings with Arab leaders. They were also concerned over the President’s deliberate speculation over a new Arab oil embargo and his non-committal attitude on possible future U.S. recognition of the PLO.)

The President told his interviewers–Walter Cronkite, Eric Serveraid and Bob Schieffer–that he would not make “any commitment” on a meeting with Rabin until “we are further along in our reassessment” of U.S. policy in the Middle East. He said, “If we meet with one” head of state, “we certainly ought to give others an opportunity to have the same in-put.”

INDICATES CAUTION IN REASSESSMENT

Asked by Cronkite if that meant “there won’t be any favored nation treatment of Israel in the future,” the President replied. “I think we have to, in this very division, where the possibility of war is certainly a serious one, if you have a war, you are inevitably going to have an oil embargo–I think we have to be very cautious in our process of reassessment.”

The President said that “prior to the suspension of the negotiations” between Egypt and Israel conducted last month by Secretary of State Henry A, Kissinger, “our whole Middle Eastern policy… had been a very successful one” but “following the very serious disappointment.” in the last negotiations, “we are committed, at least in principle, to going to Geneva.”

THREE OPTIONS EXIST

Ford added that three “options” now exist, One is to resume the “suspended negotiations without making a commitment to go to Geneva.” Another would be to “go to Geneva” and try to get an overall settlement–which is a very complicated matter. People advocate it, however. But,” he continued, “while you are going through this negotiation for an overall settlement, as a third option, you might have an interim negotiated settlement between two of the parties, such as Israel and Egypt.

While the President said. “We have not made any decision yet.” It appeared to observers that the third option is the one the U.S. still hopes to achieve, prior to making firm diplomatic, military or economic commitments to Israel.

Ford disclosed that he met last week with Yale-law professor Eugene Rostow, who was Undersecretary of State in the Johnson Administration and is advocating a Geneva approach. He also disclosed that Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Joseph J. Sisco is leading the Mideast reassessment study. Ford gave no date for completion of the study, but it is understood that it was to be completed within 4-6 weeks after the Kissinger talks were suspended on March 22.

OTHER POINTS IN INTERVIEW

Other points brought out in the interview were that the President does not “foresee” any reason for American military intervention in the Middle East and continues to “hope” that no need will arise for either the U.S. or the Soviet Union to have “peace-keeping responsibilities with their own forces” in the Middle East. The President said no date had been set for reconvening the Geneva conference and that a date early this summer was only speculation.

Ford said he makes his decisions on foreign affairs on the basis of option papers prepared by the National Security Council of which Kissinger is chairman. He praised Kissinger as the best Secretary of State he has known since he first became a member of Congress more than 20 years ago.

The President also stated in his interview that the “impasse” between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization “will be one of the most difficult things that will have to be worked out, if it is worked out at Geneva.”

The gloomy reaction to Ford’s Mideast statements here stemmed in part, from the fact that they were made only a month after the President was reportedly angered at Israel for the failure of Kissinger’s mission. Some observers thought the President displayed an even colder outlook toward the Jewish State last night.