U.A.R. More Militant

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31662, 24 April 1968, Page 17

U.A.R. More Militant

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter —Copyright? CAIRO, April 23. There are unmistakable signs that the United Arab Republic, the most powerful member of the Arab coalition ranged against Israel, is veering towards a militant solution of the quarrel with the Israelis, writes Drew Middleton, of the “New York Times” News Service.

Because of Egypt’s preeminence in population and military resources among the Arab States, this shift is expected to influence the rest of the Arab world in the same direction.

A short time ago, the U.A.R. and its allies had two options: they could pursue their primary aim—the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied Arab territories through diplomatic discussions with the tireless United Nations Ambassador (Mr Gunnar Jarring); or they could

support and strengthen the guerrilla operations against the Israeli occupiers while building up their regular forces against a day of reckoning.

Two significant factors moved the Arabs towards the latter alternative. The most immediate was the conviction of the U.A.R. Government that Mr Jarring’s mission had reached a dead end—or, as a Government spokesman put it, was “at zero and hopeless”. The Swedish diplomat came to Cairo from Israel last Wednesday, and told the Egyptian Foreign Minister (Mr Mahmoud Riad) that Israel still refused to accept the Security Council’s resolution of last November. Such acceptance is the sine qua non of progress towards peace-making as far as the Egyptians are concerned, because they believe acceptance implies the subsequent withdrawal of Israeli forces, as stipulated in the resolution. Until this occurs, they see little sense in talking about negotiations of any kind. As Cairo sees it, the Israelis, far from considering withdrawal, are daily strengthening their hold on the occupied areas and intend

to make the occupation permanent.

The next Israeli step expected in Cairo is the expulsion from the occupied lands of all but the most tractable Arabs—which will add to an already acute refugee problem.

The situation contains a high percentage of antiAmericanism. The United States, Americans are reminded, undertook to use her political and economic resources to prod both sides towards a settlement under the terms of the Security Council resolution. But in Egyptian eyes, the prodding has been confined to the Egyptian Government.

The United States Administration, which the Egyptians believe has great influence in Jerusalem, has done nothing to push the Israelis towards acceptance and implementation of the resolution. In the face of this diplomatic impasse, the Egyptians have begun to discuss the next step with their Soviet friends and allies: Mr Riad recently went to Moscow for three days of talks with his Soviet counterpart, Mr Andrei Gromyko. Earlier there had been some discussion about raising in the Security Council Israel’s refusal to accept the resolution. This course appears to have been shelved for the moment, although it may have been discussed in Moscow.

Also being considered is the reopening of the entire Middle East issue in the General Assembly when it next convenes. Much will depend on the outcome of Mr Riad’s talks with Mr Gromyko and the report Mr Jarring has given to the United Nations Secretary-General (U Thant) in Teheran. Faced with what they consider is a sterile diplomatic position, the Egyptians are increasingly interested in guerrilla operations.

Significantly, President Nasser did not mention Mr Jarring’s mission once in a speech of almost two hours last Thursday night. Instead, he proclaimed that the first duty and aim of the Arab nation must be “liberation of the occupied land and the sacred sites of Islam”. The President also reaffirmed his Government’s support for the guerrillas in stronger terms than he had used before, describing these elements as “a positive element in the battle”, and summoning all elements of Egyptian life to a long, arduous battle against Israeli occupation.