Israelis See USSR Rebuff to U.S. As Proving Soviets Do Not Want Peace

The Soviet Union’s apparent rejection of the United States plan for an Israeli-Egyptian peace arrangement was viewed by Israelis today as confirmation of Israel’s conviction that the Soviets do not really want a Middle East settlement. The American plan was submitted to the Soviets privately last Oct. 28 and disclosed by Secretary of State William P. Rogers in a speech on Dec. 9.

Israeli diplomatic sources contended that the latest U.S. proposals had failed to change the Soviet position, citing the State Department announcement Tuesday that Soviet envoy Anatoly Dobrynin had delivered the Soviet Government’s reply to Mr. Rogers and that a “preliminary review” indicated that it was “not a constructive response to our Oct. 28 formulations.” The American proposal called for an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula to the pre-June 1967 boundaries in return for a binding Egyptian commitment to peace with Israel. The Israeli sources said today that the Soviet reply confirmed Israel’s unswerving contention that the U.S. proposals, which Israel regards as inimical to its security and future bargaining position, have not created a “change of heart” on the part of the Soviets, or anyone else. The U.S. plan has been rejected by the Arabs as well as by Israel, leading Israel to reiterate that a change can be effected only by direct Israeli-Arab talks.

The contents of the Soviet reply were not made public by Washington. State Department officials insisted that it did not constitute a “flat rejection” of American proposals. It was reported however that the Russians turned down one of the key points of the U.S. plan–that the “binding commitments” Precluding hostile acts against each other by Israel and Egypt be reached by the two parties by means of direct and indirect exchanges under the auspices of the United Nations peace envoy, Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring. The American proposal in effect called for a return to the so-called Rhodes formula by which Israelis and Arabs negotiated the 1949 armistice agreements on the island of Rhodes. Israel claims that the Rhodes talks involved direct contacts with the Arabs at one stage. The Arabs insist that they did not. The U.S. apparently believes that a return to the Rhodes formula would permit the Israelis to regard them as direct negotiations and the Arabs to regard them as indirect discussions.

The Soviets have never accepted the Rhodes principle as a framework for new Arab-Israeli negotiations but they have not excluded it until now. The Israelis said that the Soviet reply to the U.S. proposals was a reversal of Moscow’s previous position in talks with the representatives of the U.S., Britain and France in New York. They saw it as acquiescence to pressure from the Arabs who declared at the Arab summit meeting in Khartoum in 1967 that they would never negotiate with Israel.

Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., Gen. Itzhak Rabin, returned to Washington yesterday. He was called home last week to participate in an emergency session of the Cabinet to discuss the latest U.S. position. His parting remark at the airport was “we shall overcome.” Gen. Rabin told newsmen that he disagreed with Secretary of State Rogers’ claim this week that American policy does not jeopardize Israel’s vital interests. However, the Ambassador said he did agree with the Secretary’s assertion that there was no link between Israel-U.S. differences in policy and Israel’s request for more American military equipment and economic aid.