Nixon’s Jet Decision Seen As ‘wise’ by Some; Economic Aid Viewed As Insufficient

Diplomats, congressmen, the press and analysts of the Middle East scene here and abroad continued today to evaluate the rationale behind and the consequences of Secretary of State William P. Rogers’ announcement Monday that the United States would hold in abeyance the sale of jets to Israel but provide $100 million in economic aid. The Washington Post, which thought the Nixon decision was a “wise” one, said it disappointed Israel only in the short term sense that it will not get more jets at this time. “Fundamentally, however, the administration addressed the issue of whether Washington should continue to ensure that Israel maintains enough of a military advantage to deter full scale war. On this crucial question the answer was yes,” the Post commented in an editorial today.”

The Christian Science Monitor’s Washington correspondent, William C. Selover, commented that “Chances of success are regarded here as doubtful.” According to Mr. Selover, the Administration sought to demonstrate that the United States is prepared to take the first step toward a limitation of arms supplies to the Mideast. “The effort is pointedly directed at the Soviet Union and France which continue to sell weapons to the Arabs,” he wrote. “Whether or not they read the signals from Washington is a matter of conjecture here.”

The Christian Science Monitor editorially hailed the Nixon decision as “perhaps the single most startling attempt to de-escalate the Middle Eastern arms race since the June, 1967 war.” The editorial conceded that “one cannot foresee the result of this action.” It could discourage the Israelis to the point where they might turn to new pre-emptive action or encourage the Arabs “to the point of gross recklessness.” Senator J.W. Fulbright, Democrat of Arkansas who is the chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Rep. George D. Aiken, Republican of Vermont, who is a leading member of the Committee, both expressed agreement with the administration abeyance policy. Rep. Daniel Button, Republican of New York, said in a letter to President Nixon he doubts that the situation in the Middle East could be “cooled by limiting Israel’s ability to defend itself.” Button said the issue was “clearly one of impressing the Arabs that the U.S. will continue to insist upon face to face negotiations between the Arabs and Israelis over boundaries. But that before this can be an actual fact, the Arab countries must accept the existence of Israel.”

ARAB HOSTILITY TO U.S. FINANCIAL MIDEAST INTERESTS SEEN AS FACTOR IN DECISION

A United Nations spokesman said Secretary General U Thant had no comments either on Rogers’ announcement, the meeting today between Soviet Ambassador Anatoly F. Dobrynin and Mr. Rogers in Washington, or on the scheduled bilateral talks in April between Mr. Dobrynin and United States Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Joseph Sisco. The Financial Times of London stated editorially that “Mounting hostility toward American financial and commercial interests in the Mideast” was doubtless a factor that influenced the Nixon Administration decision. “The fact is that with complete identification between ‘Zionism’ and ‘U.S. imperialism’ in the radical Arab mind, life is becoming increasingly uncomfortable for American business, even in the more conservative backwaters,” the paper said.

The Daily Sketch, a Conservative newspaper, noted that President Nixon risked losing the “Jewish vote” in a Congressional election year by denying Israel the war planes it requested. “To stabilize the Arab-Israeli conflict before it erupts again into full-scale war, he braves the American arms lobby, the most powerful in Washington…The American wheeler-dealer has become a world statesman.” The Scotsman, an Edinburgh daily, took the view that Israel should be thankful for the $100 million in economic aid offered by the U.S. “At the present time, Israel is much more vulnerable financially than militarily,” the paper said. “She would be in a perilous condition without foreign charity. So Israelis need not feel that they have been betrayed by their closest ally. In any case, a client state–for without American weaponry and partial protection Israel would be unlikely to remain a state for very long–cannot expect to have all its requests granted.”

Another view on the economic aid program, however, termed the $100 million far short of what Israel requested to help it out of its present serious financial difficulties. According to the Washington Post correspondent from Jerusalem, Yuval Elizur, Israel’s aid application was reported to have been for a $1 billion loan to be extended in five $200 million installments. This was the request made by Premier Golda Meir when she visited President Nixon last September. “It was explained that with the war costing Israel $1 million a day, only massive assistance would enable the nation to overcome the present crisis without endangering future economic growth,” Mr. Elizur wrote.