Shultz Affirms That Moving U.S. Embassy in Israel Would Damage U.S. Interests in the Middle East

Secretary of State George Shultz reiterated today his claim that if Congress adopts a bill calling for transfer of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, it would be “damaging” to U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Answering questions at a State Department press conference, Shultz said the issue of Jerusalem, particularly that of the Old City, “involves the deep religious sites and connotations of that city. When you touch that you touch a raw nerve pressing across the Moslem world and for that matter, something that is way beyond political matters and goes into deep religious roots. So I think it is a question that we do well to stay away from.”

He added that President Reagan hopes that Congress will reject the bill.

On other matters, Shultz would not say directly whether the Administration continues to support the sale of 1,613 Stinger mobile ground-to-air missiles to Jordan. A report in The Washington Post today said that Shultz and Senate Republicans have urged Reagan to drop the proposed sale.

SAYS HUSSEIN’S REMARKS ARE A SERIOUS SETBACK

Shultz noted that Reagan had been “ready to put on a major effort” to get the Stingers approved in Congress where there is strong opposition to the sale. “There is no question about the fact that King Hussein’s statements constitute a very serious setback to the chances of Congressional approval,” Shultz said.

Hussein last week rejected negotiations with Israel under U.S. auspices at this time, only one day after Reagan went before a United Jewish Appeal audience to urge support of arms sales to Jordan.

Shultz said that the U.S. is committed to “the importance of security for Jordan and our other friends in the region.” He said, “We will continue to work with Congress in every way we can to find the means of helping Jordan make itself as secure as possible in the region.”

REJECTS KING’S STATEMENT

Shultz also rejected Hussein’s statement that the Arabs cannot accept the the U.S. as a peace-maker in the Middle East as long as Washington is considered a close ally of Israel.

“It has to be clear to everybody that we care about stability, peace and security in the region and we are prepared to help and we have expended a lot of energy to help,” Shultz said. “But primarily, it is up to the parties in the region to find their way to security, peace and for that matter, better quality of life goals that everyone seeks.”

Shultz stressed this point saying, “You have to get out of this notion that everytime things don’t go just to everybody’s satisfaction in the Middle East, its the fault of the U.S. or its up to the U.S. to do something about it. We are active, we will help and in the end any solution that works will work primarily because the parties to it are out there, are involved in it and are determined to make it work.”

REAGAN’S INITIATIVE STILL VALID

Shultz rejected a suggestion that Hussein’s refusal to negotiate with Israel kills Reagan’s Middle East peace initiative of September 1, 1982, since the cornerstone of the initiative was to involve Jordan in the negotiations.

He said that while he could not foresee when negotiations will begin, once the parties involved decide to “sit down with each other and work out” the conditions for peace and security, the proposals made by Reagan will be as “valid” as they are now.

(Arab League Secretary General Chedli Klibi warned Reagan, in a strong letter published in Paris today, that “the total support given to Israel” by the U.S. “will reach a limit beyond which the Arab political position toward the United States would undoubtedly change deeply and significantly.”)

Shultz, commenting on Lebanon, noted that while the U.S. has “not achieved the result that we sought,” it will continue to be “engaged.” He stressed , “We don’t put a period after Lebanon,” suggesting it might be “a comma there or maybe a semi-colon.”