The Press TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1970. "Six-Day War” In Its Fourth Year

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32324, 16 June 1970, Page 16

The Press TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1970. "Six-Day War” In Its Fourth Year

The “Six-Day War” between Israel and its Arab neighbours has entered its fourth year with the prospect of fighting on a much larger scale than the pin-prick attacks which recently have marked the activities of both sides. The general insecurity has been heightened by repeated clashes between Palestinian guerrillas and their host Government in Jordan. The immediate cause of the outbreaks is not clear; tension has been so high between the guerrillas and the Jordanian Army that a quite small incident would have been sufficient to trigger it off. The guerrillas have said that the Jordanian Army should be moved back to the frontier with Israel, where its main task would be “fighting Zionism”. This would leave the guerrillas in virtual control of the capital and the Government King Hussein’s situation is difficult. He, too, would like to see his troops more active in the war against Israel, for he lost a large slice of territory in 1967. But he has no wish to surrender his country to its guerrilla guests who, while enjoying the protection of the Jordanian Army against Israel, still provoke Israel into retaliatory raids. The guerrillas have become almost a State within the State in Jordan; they create the maximum nuisance for both sides in the war with little risk to themselves. The new cease-fire agreement under which the King has dismissed a number of his senior officers is a victory for the guerrillas; the disquiet this has caused in some army units suggests that this settlement, too, will be temporary.

For the rest of the world these day-to-day incidents must be overshadowed by the prospect of a direct confrontation in the Middle East between the United States and the Sonet Union. President Nixon’s attempt to present a “ low profile ” —a retreat from President Johnson’s position of complete support for Israel—is being undermined by the Russian military presence in Egypt. The President cannot delay much longer the decision on whether Israel will receive the 125 new aircraft it wants. Nearly three-quarters of the members of the Senate have pressed him to meet the order. The Secretary of State (Mr Rogers) has suggested that Israel will receive slightly more than half this number of aircraft under the guise of “replacements” for those lost in the Israeli attacks on Egyptian and Russian positions along the Suez Canal.

The United States cannot permit a situation to arise in which Israel is threatened with annihilation by the Arab States with Russian help. In the short run the Israelis look well able to protect themselves. Their air attacks have isolated the Port Said region, at the northern end of the canal, from which it appeared most likely that Egypt would launch an attempt to re-establish a beach-head on the Sinai bank. But the new Russian-built and Russian-manned surface-to-air missiles along the canal have stopped Israel’s deep penetration raids; and behind this protection the Egyptian Army is refitting and training under Russian direction for what can only be seen as an attempt to cross the canal in force.

President Nixon hoped that a more conciliatory attitude on his part would lead to a similar attitude in Moscow. He was wrong. Russia’s interests in the Middle East go far beyond the military chastisement of Israel. The Russians have used the parlous state of the Arab countries as an excuse to extend their influence, particularly in Egypt Their real object appears to be control of a Suez Canal reopened under Russian protection, and secure bases for Russian ships in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. These are matters which must concern deeply those countries which depend on oil from the Persian Gulf; they argue for the quickest possible settlement in the area in the hope that the flood of Russian influence can be stemmed when the Arabs no longer have military need of this “ ally ”. Amid the present tensions and mutual mistrust such a settlement looks as far away as ever.