Sharett Analyzes Moscow’s New Arab Israel Policy, Urges Caution

The Soviet statement pledging support to United Nations efforts to secure a settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict was welcomed today with much criticism and caution by Israel’s Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett. Addressing the Israel Parliament, Mr. Sharett insisted that the Soviet statement “still has to pass the test of action.” He lambasted the Soviets for their “unstinting” support of the Arab cause and for having added feel to the Arab fires by supplying arms to Egypt.

Noting that the Moscow statement contained phrases which might be considered “innovations” compared with earlier pronouncements, the Israel Foreign Minister declared. “We sincerely hope that the new formulations herald a change for the better in the climate of relations between ourselves and the Soviets, the deterioration of which we never desired.” He warned, however, that the “Soviets have lent and are lending sincere and wholehearted support to the Arab states” aspirations. It is noteworthy, Mr. Sharett went on, that in talking of a peace settlement between Israel and the Arab states, no mention was made of direct negotiations–a principle which the Soviets have always upheld for the settlement of international affairs.

The negative aspects of the Soviet statement take on additional importance, he said, in view of an article in last Sunday’s Izvestia–Soviet Government organ–emphasizing in great detail the one-sided friendship of the Soviets for the Arab states and in which Israel is accused of violating the UN Charter by her actions along the border. That article also stigmatized Israel as a tool-of United States and British aggressive circles and the article differentiated between the armistice demarcation lines and permanent frontiers, Mr. Sharett pointed out. The whole intent of the article appears to be to obscure the positive aspects of the Foreign Ministry declaration and to stress its negative aspects the Israel Foreign Minister charged.

Despite this, he added, it is possible to see in this official policy declaration a certain change, and if this is true we are perhaps justified in assuming that Israel’s foreign policy had some share in it. Our consistent warning against the growing danger to Israel’s security and to the peace of the Middle East has at long last found some response in Moscow–concern for Israel’s security and for the peace of the area as reflected in world public opinion undoubtedly made its contribution.

At this point Mr. Sharett recalled expressions of sympathy from a number of French political parties, the British Labor Party, the Socialist international, the governments of the Scandinavian countries and party leaders and the press in the U.S. He expressed the opinion that the USSR could not indefinitely disregard the problems of Israel security and territorial integrity as well as the place of Israel, in world opinion if it desired to play a part in calming spirits in the Middle East and not raise new barriers against itself on the international scene.

CITES SIGNIFICANT OMISSIONS IN THE SOVIET DECLARATION

“Notwithstanding all this, we must note with concern the omission from the Soviet declaration of one crucial problem, that of the serious gap in the armed forces between Israel and Egypt and the dangers to peace and security arising from this imbalance,” Mr. Sharett underlined. The Soviet declaration admits the danger of war but disregards its origin, it calls for the prevention of war but is silent as to how it is to be achieved. Furthermore, implicit-in this declaration is justification for the Czech arms deal which is the root of the evil which we now strive to overcome.

It is doubtful, the Israeli Foreign Minister felt, that the authors of the Moscow statement had given full attention to the contradiction between justifying the arming of Egypt and the statement that the USSR has always opposed any action in the Middle East which is likely to bring about armed conflict. The Soviets claim that they have persistently sought measures to reduce international tensions, “but in our view the Czech arms deal with all its ramifications is in direct conflict with this professed aim–as long as a wide gap in arms exists between us and Egypt, the danger persists and no verbal declarations can eliminate this peril and safeguard security.

“We do not minimize the significance of important declarations,” he went on “and we are glad to note any improvement in their tenor. At the same time, we cannot disregard expressions which must put us on guard. But when security is threatened, we must firstly be concerned with its re-establishment. National security is primarily a matter of the balance of armed strength, not with modifications in the tone of a political declaration.”

He emphasized in the gravest tones that it would be “perilous” if the Soviet statement were to serve as a pretext for withholding defensive arms for Israel. He warned that Israel would oppose any proposal to freeze armaments in the Middle East at the present level because this would “sanction and perpetuate our insecurity and aggravate the menace to peace in the area.” The situation can only be frozen on a basis of equality, or at least relative equality of strength, he concluded.