Rogers, Critical of Israel, Says Geographic Considerations Not Essential for Security

Secretary of State William P. Rogers, in an apparent criticism of Israelis prioritize in a Middle East settlement said today that geographical considerations were not “essential for security.” Speaking at a 45-minute news conference, Rogers said: “Some think of geography as best for security. We don’t think geography is essential for security. In large measure, a political arrangement, an agreement understood by the parties and a willingness by the parties to maintain them are an equal consideration.” At another point, noting the divergent positions on territories held by the Israelis and the Arabs, Rogers remarked: “We think there’s a middle ground, and this can be negotiated. Security aspects do not require territory.” The Secretary, whose 1969 plan for only “insubstantial” changes in the pre-Six-Day War borders has angered Israelis, stressed today that “we have never said Israel must withdraw from all territories.”

Rogers suggested that the current Mideast “impasse” could be “overcome” by “strong” support for the peace mission of United Nations emissary Dr. Gunnar V. Jarring. “The differences are not as great as they seem,” he said. What is required, he said, is “a reciprocal agreement–signed, sealed and delivered.” He stated: “If we don’t make a settlement now, we’ll be laying the seeds for a future war…A dangerous situation could develop that could lead to World War III.” The Cabinet officer said he saw no opposition to a multi-nation peacekeeping force, in which the United States would play a “responsible” role. In that connection, he was asked by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency correspondent: “How can assurances by our government of safeguards to Israel be convincing to the Israelis when the majority leader in our Senate (Mike Mansfield of Montana) doubts the wisdom of American troops in a Middle East peacekeeping force and when our Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman (J.W. Fulbright of Arkansas) says that the intent of his U.S. -Israel security treaty proposal is to codify and limit American support for Israel?”

Rogers replied that he was unaware of Fulbright’s codification plan, made public at a Mideast seminar here last fall. But the Secretary made the general comment that “I’m quite satisfied if we worked out an agreement the House and Senate would be acceptable of it.” Rogers emphasized that there must be “adequate” arrangements for the disposition of the Sinai Peninsula and Sharm el-Sheikh. Regarding Sen. Mansfield’s report last Saturday that Soviet troops have departed from surface-to-air missile sites along the Suez Canal, Rogers said he had no evidence of “substantial” Soviet evacuation. Rogers admitted that the Arab states are “suspicious of us” for America’s alleged complicity in Israeli “intransigence,” but he noted that “Historically the United States has had friendly relations with the Arabs.”