Report Growing Convergence of American, Soviet Views on Mideast Solution

A convergence of United States and Soviet views on a Middle East settlement appears to have developed in the round of Washington talks between Assistant Secretary of State Joseph J. Sisco and Soviet Ambassador Anatoly F. Dobrynin. But the positions of the two powers have not yet drawn sufficiently close to be transferred to the Four Power Mideast talks that are being held concurrently in New York, Washington Post correspondent Robert H. Estabrook said in a report from the United Nations today. Mr. Sisco and Ambassador Dobrynin have met 12 times in Washington. The Four Powers–United States, Britain, France and Soviet Russia–held their seventh meeting in New York today. Lord Caradon, the United Kingdom’s UN representative, said afterward that the eighth meeting would be held next Tuesday and that a working party of the Ambassador’s deputies would meet in the interim.

Mr. Estabrook, attributing his information to Western diplomats, said that Ambassador Dobrynin has suggested that minor boundary adjustments could be negotiated if Israel committed itself to withdraw from occupied territories. The envoy reportedly indicated that the Soviet Union envisaged a phased Israeli withdrawal rather than a one-shot affair. The United States position has been that Israeli withdrawal should follow an Arab declaration of non-belligerency and that it should be to “secure and recognized boundaries.” The U.S. insists that the boundaries must be negotiated. But Washington apparently agrees with the Russians that only minor border adjustments should be made and that they should “not reflect the weight of conquest,” the Post reported.

According to Mr. Estabrook’s sources. Ambassador Dobrynin has given reason to believe that Moscow would not object if the Syrian Golan Heights were included within Israel’s new frontiers nor would it object strenuously if Israel retained East Jerusalem provided that Jordanian rights in Moslem Holy-Places were respected. “It is doubtful whether minor border adjustments could be stretched to include Sharm el Shiekh,” Mr. Estabrook wrote, “but some sources have suggested the possibility of changes in the territories along the West Bank of the Jordan River if Jordan were compensated with a free port on the Mediterranean.”

Another point of convergence between Washington and Moscow appears to be Soviet acceptance of the Western contention that contractual agreement must be reached between Israel and the Arab states, though not necessarily through face-to-face meetings, Mr. Estabrook reported.

(New York Times correspondent James Feron reported from Jerusalem today that reports circulating in the Israeli capital say Moscow is moving toward the U.S. and Israeli position that withdrawal from the occupied territories must be part of an overall agreement rather than a first step. The Four Powers “also are understood to have only minor differences on the question of borders,” Mr. Feron reported. He noted however that Premier Golda Meir vehemently reaffirmed Israel’s demand for signed peace treaties with Arabs as the only acceptable replacements for the present cease-fire agreements. Mrs. Meir addressed the opening of the summer session of the Knesset yesterday.)

Mr. Estabrook reported that Mrs. Meir’s speech was softened at the last minute on the recommendation of Foreign Minister Abba Eban. “According to reports here, Eban asked Mrs. Meir to tone down her remarks on possible pressure that might be applied by friendly nations, especially the United States, to induce Israel to accept a Big Four plan,” Mr. Estabrook wrote. “The revision of Mrs. Meir’s speech seems to reflect a divergence of opinion in the Israel Government on what has actually been accomplished at the Big Four talks and the series of discussions being held in Washington between Sisco and Dobrynin. Eban insists there is no sign of erosion in the American position and that harsh statements now may be detrimental to Israel.”