Nixon, Rogers Said to Be Vexed by Jews’ Criticism of U.S. Role in Talks

Administration officials said today that President Richard M. Nixon and Secretary of State William P. Rogers were becoming vexed by Jewish criticism of American participation in the Big Four Middle East talks and regard the criticism as impugning the integrity of the commitments to Israel, stated by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Rogers.

A delegation representing the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called on Secretary Rogers last week. The delegation’s spokesman, Rabbi Herschel Schacter, told him that there was an “apparent drift in U.S. policy on the Middle East away from insistence on a negotiated peace between the Arab states and Israel.” He presented a statement on behalf of the 25 leading Jewish bodies represented and said they were “concerned and agitated” over the prospect that current Four Power talks would “absolve the Arab States from their responsibility to settle their differences directly with Israel.”

The statement also voiced disquiet about Mr. Roger’s recent press conference statements on the Big Four meetings. Mr. Rogers had told newsmen that while the U.S. will not attempt to seek an imposed settlement, if the Big Powers do provide a formula for a solution, the force of world public opinion would make it difficult for any Mideast Government to reject it. “There are lots of ways to influence people without making them do something,” he said.

State Department officials have now disclosed that the Secretary felt his word of honor and that of the President were questioned by the delegation’s general approach and particularly by the attitude of two delegation members. Officials declared that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Nixon have repeatedly asserted that Israel will not be sold out by the U.S. at the Big Four conference, that no peace unfair to Israel would be imposed, that final consent to any settlement must come from the countries directly concerned.

In official circles it was said that there was a great deal of resentment over the Conference’s expression of uneasiness that it said, had been “deepened” by Secretary Rogers’ statement about the “force of public opinion” and by the “failure to condemn terrorist activity in the joint statement issued by President Nixon and King Hussein.”

Officials said that the sincere commitment of the new Administration was conveyed in person by the President and Secretary Rogers to Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban during the latter’s recent visit to the United States. They said that Mr. Eban, instead of accepting the “generous assurances” offered–in the words of the officials–later made public addresses in various cities that “agitated” American opinion in the matter of the Big Four talks.

These officials further asserted that the U.S. Government has been steadfast in its commitments to Israel in the course of the current talks with the Soviet Union, France and Britain. The UN Ambassadors held their fifth meeting today at the New York residence of French Ambassador Armand Berard

Representations such as have been made were said to reflect a “premature judgment” and a “prejudiced prior judgment” that does not attribute motives of honesty and firmness of resolve to American leaders. U.S. authorities took exception to the argument that there was no real danger of war in the Middle East. The officials said that the U.S. assessment indicated a massive Soviet naval buildup in the Mediterranean, an escalation of border conflict between Israel and the Arabs, and an obviously increased danger of general war. They cited the weekend statement by former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion of Israel urging action on a peace settlement and warning that “we may be on the brink of a new war.”

Officials said that while U.S. leadership was being “maligned” on the question of Big Four talks, the U.S. delegate to the talks fought and defeated a “declaration of intent” that jeopardized Israeli interests. As a result the declaration idea, pushed by France, was shelved. The declaration would have specified what Israel, Egypt, and Jordan Intended to do in the implementation of the Nov. 22, 1967 UN Security Council resolution. The French proposed that the Four Powers should draft the declaration and send it to the Mideast states through UN envoy Jarring for their separate signatures. The U.S. objected to the concept in that it provided an evasion for the Arabs of their obligation to make a real peace. France and the Soviet Union demanded that the declaration begin with an Israeli pledge to withdraw. The U.S. and Britain insisted that it start with an Arab pledge to recognize Israeli sovereignty. France and Russia insisted that the declaration state Israel’s intention to withdraw “from the territories occupied” in the 1967 war. But the U.S. and Britain objected. They wanted the declaration to state Israel’s intent to withdraw “to secure and recognized boundaries.”

U.S. authorities said that the American struggle at the Big Four talks was in complete conformity with the commitment to Israel that withdrawal should be to new, defensible and just boundaries and should take place only after the boundaries have been negotiated. Officials here said that Britain steered a middle course. They said that the U.S. emerged as the champion of Israel “at the very time when attacks were being made by the interests defended against their benefactors and supporters.”