Atherton Tells House Committee That U.S. Mideast Policy Unchanged

The U.S. commitment of friendship to Israel was described to Congress by a top State Department policy-maker today as “a constant of American policy which will continue to sustain the relationship” between the two countries and which “we believe is understood and accepted by all of the governments” in the Middle East.

Alfred L. Atherton, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian Affairs, made that statement during an exhaustive two hours of testimony before the House International Relations Committee’s subcommittee on the Middle East chaired by Rep. Lee Hamilton (D. Ind.). Atherton said that “Along with the underlying U.S. commitment to peace in the Middle East and to Israel’s security goes the belief that the basis for a settlement between Israel and the Arab states is in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”

Under questioning by Rep. Stephen Solarz (D. NY), Atherton specifically ruled out the partition resolution of 1947 as having any consideration in U.S. policy. “I assure you in no sense is it our intent to endorse that resolution,” he said.

With respect to President Carter’s statements on compensation for Palestinians, Atherton said this is generally accepted.” He pointed out that the U.S. always voted for re-affirming such compensation but he was not aware of any comparable UN legislation for Jewish refugees. Atherton added however, that “This is not automatically excluded” and that in his personal opinion “this is perfectly reasonable to put on the table.”

Atherton insisted that the U.S. will not impose settlement terms on any of the Middle East parties. He said “We have said many times we won’t impose a settlement.” When Hamilton pointed out that former Undersecretary of State George Ball has said that the U.S. should use pressure on Israel, Atherton replied, “He (Ball) hasn’t explained how you are going to impose a settlement.” He added that “At some point if we see a reasonable and rational way of resolving an issue we’ll make it known to both sides. The very fact of making judgments known has certain weight.”

He agreed with Hamilton’s view that an imposed settlement would not be successful because the parties would resent it and it would ultimately break down. “Our thinking goes in the direction of logic and persuasion that alternatives to a settlement are much worse” than failure to reach agreement, Atherton said.

He said that Israel’s new Premier-designate, Menachem Begin, may not get to Washington for talks with President Carter before July. He said that after Begin and Carter meet, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance would re-visit the Middle East “to discuss with the parties suggestions of our own if this seems useful. But I want to emphasize that we will not be seeking to impose our ideas on the parties,” Atherton said.

MOSCOW KEPT INFORMED

Asked about the Soviet role in the Middle East, the Assistant Secretary of State said that Moscow was informed each month on the situation in the region. He said the Soviets are not pressing for any particular date to reconvene the Geneva conference except “the sooner the better.” He said he had “no judgment” and “no indication” whether Moscow would resume diplomatic relations with Israel.

Atherton said that Israel’s conception of a Palestinian-Jordanian entity “would not be incompatible” with the U.S. outlook for a settlement. He said that in the U.S. view Israel is not required to return precisely to its 1967 borders. He said “the history” of Resolution 242 “is clear. The big argument is what is practical.” He would not define what a “secure border” is, observing that there are many options.

However, he said that borders close to population centers are “particularly sensitive. “He said that “in recognition of this, we give serious thought to arrangements that accompany borders.” In that connection he mentioned early warning systems and demilitarized zones. He said Egypt and Syria “do concede minor alterations on the West Bank but none on the Golan or in Sinai.” Atherton added that “This is pretty much their bottom line. But we have to see what the final negotiations produce.”

He said the U.S. would be inclined to “consider favorably” a request from President Elias Sarkis of Lebanon for weapons. Asked about the oil factor, Atherton recalled that Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia “went out of his way to de-link oil from the political process in his meeting with President Carter.” Recalling the November, 1975 statement by the then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Harold Sounders about the essentiality of Palestinian self-determination, Atherton said, “On our part, the concept of a homeland could mean self-determination” but “it has to come out of the negotiations.”