Mccarthy Challenges Rogers’ Contention That Geography is Not Important to Security

Former Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy has challenged Secretary of State William P. Rogers’ contention that geography is not important to security in the Middle East. The 1968 Democratic presidential hopeful from Minnesota addressed a meeting of the American Professors for Peace in the Middle East here yesterday. He also questioned the wisdom of Rogers’ suggestion that U.S. troops participate in a Mideast peace-keeping force. McCarthy, whose outspoken criticism of U.S. involvement in Vietnam was the basis for his presidential bid, said the government’s record of support and commitment to Israel “has been somewhat less than clear and certain in the years since 1967.” He said there was no chance for a speedy, comprehensive solution to the Middle East conflict but observed that an eventual solution could come about only through direct negotiations between the parties concerned and must be arrived at with the assumption that Israel cannot return to its pre-June, 1967 boundaries. McCarthy chided his fellow critic of U.S. Vietnam policy, Sen. J. William Fulbright, for suggesting a bilateral U.S.-Israeli treaty based on the old boundaries. He warned that “Sen. Fulbright’s suggestion would replace the situation of 1967 with an arrangement that might turn any future conflict in the Middle East into a direct confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.”

McCarthy said that Rogers’ intervention in the Middle East reflected the same confusion and lack of clear commitment of previous administrations, “Geography is important to us in Vietnam where we talk of the need of controlling at least two additional countries in order to provide security for the withdrawal of American troops,” he said. “Geography–that is, borders and boundaries–has been vital in establishing the area of the United States of America. And geography–lands and borders–is of vital consideration in the land of Israel and in Israel’s self-defense.” McCarthy thought a partial arrangement could be reached in the near future, mainly between Israel and Egypt over the Suez Canal and western Sinai, “but that peace negotiations should proceed on the assumption that Israel may make some territorial concessions but not go back to the pre-June, 1967 borders.” On the problem of Arab refugees and the Palestinians themselves, McCarthy suggested that “Israel will, with international assistance, have to make generous compensation for unrecoverable lands. But the refugee question, as all other significant issues of dispute, will have to be arranged between the parties in an atmosphere of good faith…And good faith means the recognition of history and grievance alike.”