President Carter’s proposed aircraft sales package to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt will not be presented to Congress formally before the end of April, it was disclosed today as new questions developed among the lawmakers over Saudi Arabia’s need for sophisticated offensive warplanes and the Administration’s insistence that it would withdraw the package if any part of it was rejected. House Majority Leader Jim Wright (D.Tex.) said flatly, “There is no such thing as all or nothing.”
The President summoned the House International Relations Committee to the White House late yesterday and met with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning to press for approval of the aircraft package.
Sen. Alan Cranston (D. Calif.), the Senate Majority Whip, said after the meeting that the Carter Administration will not formally submit the package proposal until after the Senate completes action on the second Panama Canal Treaty which is expected on April 29. Both houses of Congress must disapprove of the sale within 30 days of its formal presentation in order to block all or any part of it.
SEEK CLARIFICATION OF SAUDI NEEDS
Rep. Jonathan Bingham (D. NY) and Sen. Charles Percy (R.III.) questioned the validity of Saudi Arabia’s stated need for 60 F-15 jet fighters
“I urge the President and Secretary of State (Cyrus) Vance to clarify” the circumstances of Saudi Arabia’s need, Percy said. “If the chips were down” in the Arab-Israeli dispute, “these weapons could be used possibly against Israel,” he said.
Bingham said, after meeting with the President, that he was informed while in Saudi Arabia last January by a leading figure in the Saudi defense establishment that Saudi Arabia was not threatened by either Iraq or Yemen, both under strong Soviet influence.
Secretary of Defense Harold Brown had told the House group that Saudi Arabia required the aircraft for defense against Iraq, Bingham said. The legislator pointed out that “it is important” that this “is the first time any Administration has offered a proposed sale to Israel conditioned on sale of arms to two Arab states. That represents a serious change in U.S. policy,” Bingham said.
Sen. Jerry Hart (D.Colo.), however, leaned strongly toward acceptance of the Administration’s package proposal. He said that while he was opposed to arms sales in general, he thought the package was “natural.” He felt that Israel as well as Saudi Arabia could buy weapons from sources other than the U.S. if the U.S. refused to sell them.
PEACE ISSUE MORE IMPORTANT
Sens. George McGovern (D.SD) and Jacob K. Javits (R.NY) both subordinated the aircraft deal to the current U.S.-Israeli policy differences. McGovern said “the peace issue” in the Middle East “is more important than the arms sale and the issues associated with it.”
Javits observed that the package is “not all that significant.” He said the Congress will receive “a complete appraisal” of the Middle East military balance when the package is submitted. “We’ll find a pragmatic way to keep our promise to Israel” (the U.S. commitment of Sept. 1, 1975) and “we will work out pragmatically some arrangement with Egypt and Saudi Arabia,” Javits said.
Wright said the President explained to the House committee that the U.S. made commitments to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt and that the President “can see no circumstances that our refusal of the sale of this limited” number of aircraft “will be helpful to Israel.” He said the President told the committee that the Saudis would purchase aircraft from other sources and “we would lose” control of the use of the weapons and “the moral suasion” to both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
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.
