President Nixon’s emerging stand on the Mideast was interpreted today in Administration circles as part of an effort to make United States foreign policy more fluid. It was not seen as an abandonment of Israel although the Jewish State opposes Four Power talks on the peace question, reports JTA Washington correspondent Milton Friedman.
Steps to “cool” the region were depicted as an essential prelude to the President’s forthcoming trip to Europe and his desire to revitalize the European community. The trip may lead to meetings with Soviet leaders at a later date when the West can deal with them on mutual problems from a stronger position.
Officials said that Mr. Nixon was fully aware that the Soviet Government and President Charles de Gaulle were biased on the Arab-Israel issue and had “exaggerated” the crisis. However, to understand Mr. Nixon’s acceptance of the French proposal for Big Four talks “in principle,”‘ the broader aims of U.S. diplomacy must be considered, they observed.
Mr. Nixon was said to have decided that the time had come to “de-fuse” the Middle East “bomb” through Super Power efforts to prevent an American-Soviet nuclear confrontation. The Administration does not feel a sense of panic but a festering danger is seen and Big Power talks are thought timely. The immediate top priority of Nixon policy is the success of the Paris talks and conclusion of the Vietnam War. Entrance into a dialogue on the Middle East may enhance chances at Paris, where de Gaulle and the Russians wield influence, observers said. The new Administration wants to stem Soviet penetration of the Middle East and regain Arab friendship wherever possible. A basic U.S. commitment to Israel is recognized and reiterated privately. But a decision appears to have been made that “leverage” on Israeli policies is essential.
The Israelis are being described behind closed doors as “rigid” and “trigger happy,” with the ob- servation being made that Israeli “hawks” are motivated by the approaching Israel national election. Washington officials say that this is a reason why the Administration wants to keep Israel at “arm’s length” while looking to UN and Big Powers initiatives. As one official put it, “We cannot let the Israeli tail wag the American dog.” This “wagging” has been exploited by the Russians and American relations with the Arabs have been undermined, according to proponents of more “fluid” policies.
Since Israel looks to Washington for Phantom jets as well as protection against outright Soviet intervention, officials want a formula providing greater control over Israeli policies. The U.S. lever here is seen in the total dependence of Israel on Washington in the forthcoming bi-lateral and probable Big Power talks. The American public mood, it is said, will support the new approach because of a desire to avert “another Vietnam.'”
According to the State department, the time has come for an outside influence to bring restraining pressures on both sides and to promote a viable settlement.
Reports from Cairo today said that Yassir Arafat, the El Fatah leader, announced that a Viet Cong-type army would be established within Israel. He called for a national liberation struggle conducted underground within Israel and Israel-held territory.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
