Sisco Denies U.S. Pressuring Israel to Withdraw to Pre-1967 Borders

Joseph J. Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asia affairs, today denied that the U.S. was pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula. In a letter appearing in the March 10 issue of Near East Report, a weekly newsletter on American policy in the Near East published here, Sisco wrote that such reports “could not be more wrong.” It has never been our policy that the Security Council resolution of June, 1967 requires total Israeli withdrawal in all cases to the pre-June 5, 1967 line,” Sisco wrote. “We recognize that in some instances the possibility must be kept open for some changes in the pre June, 1967 armistice lines where a return to those lines would leave elements of that conflict unresolved. “Sisco was replying to charges published in the March 3 issue of NER by Editor I.L. Kennen, that “We seem to be reliving 1957, when the Soviet Union and the U.S., competing for President Nasser’s favor, forced Israel to withdraw completely from Sharm el-Sheikh and other positions occupied in the Sinai War. Once again, as in 1957, the Great Powers are pressuring Israel to surrender to Egyptian terms, total withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula.”

In denying the charges, Sisco said “It has been fundamental to our policy since June, 1967, that there should be no return to the conditions of the past; that there must this time be a settlement which replaces armistice with peace based on direct and reciprocal commitments of the parties to each other, a settlement that recognizes Israel’s borders and its sovereignty, and terminates all claims of belligerency and that includes security arrangements that are inherently durable.” Sisco added that while the U.S. recognizes that borders may have to be changed, the U.S. believes such changes should be insubstantial since “in our judgement peace is not attainable on the basis of substantial alterations in the map of the area that was in existence before the June, 1967 war.” Commenting on the Sisco letter, Kennen said “It is true that our government’s stated objective may differ from 1957, in that we now seek a peace treaty. But our procedure may bar that objective.” He said that by attempting to fix the Israeli Egyptian border in advance of direct negotiations, the U.S. had circumscribed Israel’s capacity to negotiate freely. “In that respect,” he continued, “the difference between 1957 and 1971–to use the word of the day–may prove to be ‘insubstantial.’ “