Mounting Concern in Israel over U.S. Guarantee of Security

Premier Yitzhak Rabin has expressed Israel’s mounting concern that proposals for a U.S. guarantee of Israel’s security–possibly in the form of a formal defense pact–is predicated on a withdrawal by Israel to its pre-June 1967 borders, boundaries that Israel regards as insecure and indefensible.

The “trial balloon” of such proposals–literally “floated” when a senior American official disclosed them to reporters aboard Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger’s plane enroute from Zurich to Paris last week–is also viewed here as a signal that Kissinger’s return visit to the Middle East next month will be his last attempt at step-by-step diplomacy and will be followed by the reconvening of the Geneva peace conference, probably in mid-summer.

SUBSTITUTE FOR DEFENSIBLE BORDERS

Soberly assessing these developments in a radio interview Friday. Premier Rabin said; “Those who propose a U.S.-Israel defense pact or U.S. guarantees see them as a substitute for defensible borders, for Israel’s capacity to defend itself….I would on no account want a situation to be created in which those proposing a defense treaty intend a substitute for defensible borders.”

Initial reports of the briefing on Kissinger’s plane put the idea of guarantees in the context of an interim or second-stage agreement between Israel and Egypt in Sinai–meaning an American commitment to see that both sides observe the terms of such a limited agreement.

But State Department spokesman Robert Anderson, briefing reporters in Washington last Thursday, indicated that the guarantees were contemplated in the framework of an overall peace settlement between Israel and all of its Arab neighbors. That, in fact, was the burden of Kissinger’s own exposition to Israeli Ambassador Simcha Dinitz at their luncheon meeting in Washington yesterday.

To Rabin and other Israeli leaders, this reflects the American Administration’s active preparation for resumption of the Geneva conference, whatever the outcome of Kissinger’s next–and almost certainly his last–try at step-by-step shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East.

The scenario now envisaged by the most knowledgeable Israeli observers is a resumption of the Geneva conference at which the two superpowers, U.S. and USSR, serving as co-chairmen, will each put on the table its own detailed and specific proposals for an overall settlement in the Mideast. There is no question here but that the Soviet Union’s plan will be based on Moscow’s long-standing policy in favor of total Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

ROGERS PLAN STILL ALIVE

But the American plan is not expected to be much less onerous, from Israel’s viewpoint than the Russian one. This will inevitably bring to the fore the long latent dispute between Washington and Jerusalem over the future boundaries of the Jewish State.

Israelis have never deluded themselves that the so-called Rogers Plan, expounded by former Secretary of State William P. Rogers in 1969, which called for only “insubstantial” border changers, is not still the basis of American Mideast policy. The Rogers Plan was in fact the Nixon plan and was most certainly endorsed by Kissinger’s National Security Council, Israelis believe.

In effect, it was merely a re-statement of the basic position adopted by the U.S. during the Administration of President Lyndon Johnson–that Israel’s future borders must not “reflect the weight of conquest.” That American policy, though lying fallow for years, is very much alive and has been carried over into the Ford Administration, the Israeli observers say.

While the step-by-step approach of Kissinger enabled both Washington and Jerusalem to shelve their basic differences on territories, the return to Geneva is sure to highlight them, it is felt here. It was to take the edge off the developing confrontation that Kissinger ordered a State Department study of U.S. guarantee options which would be offered to Israel as compensation for its withdrawal to virtually the pre-June 1967 lines. Israeli circles believe.

SEE STRUGGLE AGAINST U.S. POLICY

Rabin’s remarks Friday were seen as the first shot in a battle against the American policy trend which could develop into the most bitter political struggle in Israel’s history. Israeli opinion, by and large, rejects the concept of guarantees as a substitute for Israel’s ability to defend itself. Even Meir Payil, doveish leader of the leftist Moked faction in the Knesset, warned over the weekend that Israel must retain its ability of self-defense at all costs and that no guarantees could replace that ability.

On the other hand, there is a widespread feeling among Israeli politicians of all persuasions that contractual American undertakings could be useful in ensuring Israel’s security. Some analysts, including former Foreign Minister Abba Eban, say American guarantees would be welcome to counter or deter Soviet involvement or threats of intervention in the area. It was recalled recently that Yigal Allon, now Israel’s Foreign Minister, had suggested several years ago that while the idea of U.S. guarantees should be approached with caution, it should not be rejected out of hand.

This ambiguity of feeling only adds to the perplexity many Israelis feel. There is also puzzlement over why Kissinger chose to unveil the guarantee study to newsmen during a flight over Europe but failed to bring the subject up during his lengthy conferences with Israeli leaders in Jerusalem only a few days earlier. The subject of guarantees did not figure in Kissinger’s latest talks here, at least according to Israeli government sources.