The United States today warned the Security Council to avoid taking any action which would disturb Resolution 242. The warning came from John Scali. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in a rare appearance before newsmen at the White House a week before the Council begins what he called “a sweeping review of the Middle Eastern problem” and the day before Senate hearings begin on the Mideast oil situation and the political situation in the area.
Scali declared the U.S. position is for Israel and the Arab nations to enter into “direct or indirect” negotiations to reach a settlement. He stressed in response to newsmen’s questions that the “continuance” of Resolution 242 “as it is now written” is the “takeoff point” essential to the opening of “direct or indirect negotiations.
Scali’s remarks were seen as a strong reaffirmation of the U.S. position, held for more than two years, that a solution to the Mideast conflict must come from negotiations between the parties. In addition, his comments were regarded as a rebuff to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman J. William Fulbright’s contention in a Senate speech last week that the great powers should impose a settlement through the United Nations. Fulbright has scheduled hearings for two days beginning tomorrow on the Mideast and the oil situation as it affects the U.S.
Scali said the U.S. “attitude” in the Security Council will be influenced by two main considerations.” These, he said, are that “the principal parties to the dispute have each accepted” Resolution 242 “as a basis for a settlement” and that while we recognize that each side has long held different interpretations of this resolution, we continue to feel it is a fundamental framework whose continued existence is essential.”
Continuing, Scali said: “We believe that the Council must avoid any action which would have the effect of altering its substance and delicate balance. Equally important, we have noted in this regard that whenever United Nations bodies seek to reinterpret Security Council Resolution 242 or have suggested procedures not acceptable to both sides, they have impeded rather than promoted negotiations between the parties. We believe, therefore, that the Council must avoid any action which would make more difficult the achievement of a meaningful dialogue between the parties.”
Scali’s reference to reinterpretation of the resolution appears to be a strike against the renewal of Ambassador Gunnar Jarring’s proposal of Feb. 1971, in which he set forth suggestions for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.
Scali also said that the U.S. would be “guided by our friendship and esteem for both sides” in the Council’s discussion and would work for “a constructive outcome that will enhance and not impede the prospects for a just and equitable negotiated agreement between the parties.” He cautioned that “No one’s interest is served by resort to recriminations or unworkable procedures.”
Responding to questions. Scali said he did not anticipate a veto by the U.S. in the debate would be necessary. However he said, although the U.S. has no plans to introduce its own resolution he would be “prepared to take whatever action is necessary in the debate which begins June 4. Regarding the prospects for talks between the parties. Scali said that much would depend on the temperature of the debate,” whether it would be “constructive” or whether it would be an “exchange of denunciation and insult.”
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.
