U.s., British and Canadian Press Generally Critical and Warn of New Mideast Danger

Influential newspapers in the United States, Britain and Canada were generally critical today of the Nixon administration’s Jet policy toward Israel and skeptical that withholding the Phantoms and Sky hawks would cool the ardor of the Arab nations or the Soviet Union to heat up the Middle East situation. Several noted editorially that withholding the jets at this time would be interpreted by the Soviet-Arab axis as a sign of weakness by the United States. The New York Times said the Nixon administration “has preserved a precarious option for peace in the Middle East” by holding planes in abeyance and offering extended economic aid. “The Israeli Air Force,” The Times continued, “has demonstrated decisive superiority in the skies over all of her Arab neighbors in recent months. This advantage is in no danger of being upset in the near future… In the meantime. Washington’s gesture of restraint provides an incentive to the Soviet Union to join in slowing down the dangerous Middle East arms race. It should demonstrate to the Arabs the sincerity of this country’s desire for a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.” If, however, the Soviets and the Arabs take advantage of this new situation to increase their armaments, “it is clear…that the United States will stand firmly behind Israel in defense of her security.”

The New York Post, however, said “the U.S. has adopted a policy that threatens to alter the balance of political power,” and “both the Arab nations and Moscow will privately interpret the decision as a sign of irresolution, temporizing and weakness to be exploited without delay.” Such an attitude by the Soviets and Arab “might well be a dangerous miscalculation,” the Post noted, but the Nixon decision “may tragically compound” it. The Daily News of New York stated: “Everyone knows the Kremlin is striving for domination if not ownership of the whole Mideast. Israel is the free world’s best and bravest friend in that area. Therefore, it is to our interest to keep Israel equipped with plenty of the best and newest weaponry, and too bad about delicate and tricky balance-of-power considerations.”

The Atlanta Constitution declared itself “in sympathy with Mr. Nixon’s intention…to wind down the tensions in the Middle East” but said “it makes no sense to…deny the purchase of jet planes to Israel while France and Russia continue to arm the Arab nations.” Such a policy, it said, “may severely undermine the confidence of that beleaguered nation.” The Philadelphia Inquirer asked whether Secretary of State William P. Rogers intends “to wait until the opening by the Arabs of a fourth ground war before the U.S. agrees to sell some planes–possibly too late to be of any help?” Middle East air power, it commented, “is unbalanced in favor of the Arabs and is becoming more unbalanced every day.”

ADMINISTRATION JET POLICY TERMED GROTESQUE ILLUSION, CALCULATED RISK

The Montreal Gazette declared: “President Nixon’s decision against the sale of more jet fighters to Israel at this time is paradoxically a setback to the cause of peace in the Middle East.” Further, the paper asserted, “there is a continuing danger that the Israeli Government, resolute and full of a sense of heroic mission, will lose all patience with international diplomacy and decide that the nation has no choice but to wage another all-out war simply to go on living.” President Nixon’s decision was “ill-advised,” the paper said, because “Israel is the country whose existence is threatened and Israel is the country that has constantly been prepared to negotiate with its neighbors…Washington is following a grotesque illusion when it tries to promote and maintain a balance of power in the Middle East by itself.”

The London Evening Standard said the Nixon Administration’s decision would not undermine Israel’s self-confidence but it warned of a “clear danger” in the erection of missile sites in Egypt manned by Soviet crews. It asserted that “Israel does not yet know how effective they are and will be tempted to put them out of operation. They may well be protected by Russians and if so, the Mideast crisis could be put on a far more perilous course. The need for negotiation has never been so strong.” The Telegraph called the Nixon administration’s Israeli-jet decision a “sensible” one, but also a “calculated risk.” President Nixon, it commented editorially, is “playing it cool,” but Egypt, supplied with new Soviet armaments, may choose not to follow suit but to “suffer a rush of blood to the head and embark on measures which would in effect restart the war.” The Soviet Union, too, the paper noted, may interpret the decision as a sign of American weakness and exploit it dangerously. The Times suggested that the Israeli attacks near Cairo (which Israel has called unintentional) may have cost her the new American planes and gained the Egyptians the new Soviet SAM-3 missiles. The Nixon decision is thus a “stinging reproof” to Israel. The Times-Jerusalemer concluded that Israeli reaction to the turndown has been relatively calm because the Army and Air Force are confident, perhaps over-confident, of their military superiority over the Arabs.