Public Information Series

Department of State

BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The Secretary of State on December 9, 1969 made a statement outlining the views of the United States on a settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict. The Secretary's remarks summarized proposals which the United States has made in the major power talks on the Middle East and has discussed with the parties. Substantially accurate versions of United States views on both the UAR and Jordan aspects of an Arab-Israel settlement have appeared in the press.

The United States proposals are fully consistent with long-standing United States policy with which the parties to the conflict have been familiar since the months immediately following the Arab-Israel war of 1967. It gives strong support to the Security Council Resolution adopted unanimously on November 22, 1967 which, in the view of the United States, provides the best framework for a peaceful and enduring settlement.

Although Secretary Rogers' speech gives a clear outline of United States policy, there have been misunderstandings of the United States position in the press and elsewhere in recent weeks. Fears have been expressed that the United States has changed its position on essential aspects of an Arab-Israel peace.

A careful reading of Secretary Rogers' speech together with a review of the text of the Security Council Resolution of November 1967 shows that these fears are without foundation. The United States position on major points at issue is clear and is based firmly on the Resolution of the Security Council.

P-526 - 170

Continued

-2-

Withdrawal and Peace

The United States does not propose that Israel withdraw from
occupied Arab territory except in the context of a mutually
accepted peace and measures to ensure the security of both
sides. What virtually the entire world is saying to both
sides is that peace and withdrawal are inseparable. There
will be no peace without withdrawal; there should be no with-
d withdrawal without peace. This has been the constant position of
the United States since the 1967 war and is the essence of the
November 1967 Security Council Resolution.

As Secretary Rogers said in his December 9 speech: "...our
policy is to encourage the Arabs to accept a permanent peace
based on a binding agreement and to urge the Israelis to with-
draw when their territorial integrity is assured as envisaged
by the Security Council resolution."

Foreign Minister Eban of Israel gave recognition to this US
position in the course of an interview on Israeli television
December 22, 1969 when he stated: "No demand is being made on
Israel to budge or withdraw until an agreement is signed which
would satisfy Israel's needs from a peace and security point
of view."

What the US proposals specify as constituting a genuine peace
is totally different from the fragile armistice arrangements
that have existed in the past. The US proposals provide that
a final peace settlement should include firm and specific com-
mitments by the parties, undertaken in relation to each other,
to refrain from hostile acts; to restrain guerrillas on their
respective territory; to guarantee free navigation for all
through the area's international waterways; to acknowledge each
other's sovereign existence; and to refrain from interference
in each other's domestic affairs.

Negotiations and Agreement

Similarly, the United States continues to hold firmly to the
view that there is a need for a mutually binding, contractual
peace based on negotiated agreements. The US proposals provide
that Israel and its Arab neighbors in a final peace agreement
should explicitly acknowledge each other's sovereignty, political
independence and territorial integrity and undertake to desist
from hostile acts of any kind; that the agreed and stated aim
of a settlement must be the establishment of a lasting peace
between the parties; and that the final documents must set forth
secure and agreed boundaries between them.

P-526 - 170

Continued

-3-

The US believes that the best way to begin a negotiating process is to support the mission of UN Special Representative Gunnar Jarring established by the 1967 Security Council resolution. We are fully aware and appreciate that Israel would prefer to reach a settlement through direct negotiations from the outset with no preconditions, and opposes as a matter of principle the efforts of the major powers to work out guidelines to help the parties enter into the negotiating process. The history of settlement efforts over the past two and a half years makes clear that negotiations between the parties are unlikely to get started at all without some kind of outside catalyst and without flexibility on both sides with respect to the precise negotiating procedures used.

The aim of the US proposals is to bring the parties to the negotiating table. We are strongly opposed to any attempt to impose a settlement. Our proposals leave large and vital areas of negotiation to the parties, in particular the practical security arrangements which are intended to safeguard a peace. As to negotiations, the only preconditions contained in our proposals are those laid down in the 1967 Security Council Resolution which include commitments to peace and withdrawal.

## Other Issues: Boundaries, Refugees, Jerusalem

Some commentators have expressed concern that the US has changed its policy on the question of boundaries and territory and have taken the view that by stating its position on borders and making suggestions on refugees and Jerusalem, the US has undermined Israel's bargaining position. Israel's bargaining position has not been weakened; it is not called upon to remove one soldier from territory occupied during the June 1967 war unless it receives from the Arabs commitments incorporated in a peace agreement in which the practical safeguards of Israeli security are spelled out and are contractually binding on the parties.

On the boundary question, our position rests firmly on the 1967 Security Council resolution which provides for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war. As President Nixon told the UN General Assembly on September 18, 1969, we believe that peace cannot be achieved on the basis of substantial alterations in the map of the Middle East. We make a distinction between the question of the location of Israel's boundaries, on which the thrust of the Security Council resolution is clear, and the act of Israeli withdrawal to those boundaries, which should only take place under terms and conditions of peace and security worked out and agreed to by the

P-526 - 170

Continued

-4-

parties themselves under Ambassador Jarring's auspices.

On refugees and Jerusalem, the recommendations we have made as a framework for negotiations and agreement between the parties reflect long-established policies of the United States Government which have been stated publicly in the United Nations and elsewhere on numerous occasions.

## US Role and Interests

As Secretary Rogers has emphasized, peace rests with the parties to the conflict. The efforts of major powers can help; they can provide a catalyst; they can stimulate the parties to talk; they can help define a realistic framework for agreement; but agreement among other powers cannot be a substitute for agreement among the parties themselves.

The US and others who have interests at stake in the Middle East cannot remain aloof while dangerous instability grows in that area. Furthermore, the major powers have responsibilities inherent in their Security Council role and in their relations with the countries in the area, including the supply of arms and economic support, which they cannot abdicate. We are convinced that we should continue to work with others--in the area and throughout the world--so long as they sincerely seek the end we seek: a just and lasting peace without which no state in the area will find true security.

P-526 - 170

Public Information Series

Department of State

BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

P-526 - 170

Continued