The United States continued today to press Israel to maintain an “open mind” on the joint pursuit of a Mideast peace by the Big Four. Foreign Minister Abba Eban was guest of the State Department at a working luncheon tendered by Secretary of State William P. Rogers. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Joseph Sisco, attended with other officials. Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin accompanied Mr. Eban. Afterward, Mr. Eban had an appointment with Under-Secretary of State Elliot L. Richardson.
The same theme–Israeli acceptance of the Big Four concept–was said by department officials to have pervaded the talks so far. Mr. Eban was described as having enumerated in detail Israel’s concerns and her minimum requirements for a lasting peace.
Secretary of State Rogers said yesterday following a meeting with Mr. Eban that he hoped that such bilateral exchanges would lead to Four Power talks on a settlement. Major power talks, he said, could assist UN envoy Dr. Jarring in his quest for peace. State Department sources said the main thrust of the U.S. position was to persuade Israel to have confidence in American diplomacy and assurances.
A breakthrough on the Mideast problem was being sought here before the Israeli position becomes complicated by Israel’s forthcoming national election and developing political situation, the sources said. Toward that end, U.S. diplomacy was described as seeking to exploit whatever fluidity may still exist in the Israeli position in order to obtain a settlement involving compromise by both Israel and the Arabs.
President Nixon was depicted by State Department sources as seeking the achievement of peace in the Mideast with new vigor following the worsening of prospects for a Vietnam settlement. The U.S. and USSR have exchanged Mideast views and progress was said to have been made toward a formula although important points remained to be clarified. Because clarification of these points was awaited, the President deferred his meeting with Mr. Eban from today to tomorrow, sources said. The President was also said to be concentrating on the anti-ballistic-missile issue.
The Israeli position presented here was believed to stress that her consent was mandatory for any settlement and that no solution could be imposed without her agreement. Formulations like a Four Power guarantee and such changes in the cease-fire, without peace, as phased withdrawal prior to final settlement were termed unacceptable. Nothing short of peace by agreement of the parties to the conflict was acceptable, according to the best information available here. Israel was stressing that a Four Power guarantee would merely “globalize” the Mideast conflict and increase rather than decrease the chances of big power confrontation. Every border clash under such circumstances might then create dangerous nuclear risks, Israel argues. The Israeli view was thought to be that Russia was probing the U.S. world position searching for points of weakness in the policies of the new U.S. Administration. Moscow was said to be seeking the eviction of Israel from occupied territory and to reopen the Suez Canal without providing a real peace for Israel.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
