power talks and that a meeting was likely in the near future. On March 24, U.N. Ambassador Charles Yost said that preliminary bilateral talks among the four nations had produced areas of agreement which cleared the way for a meeting of the four powers. Secretary of State Rogers told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the United States hoped to use its "influence" to achieve a peace in the Middle East and that in order to do this, the United States had been in contact with the major powers and with the parties of the dispute. The first meeting of the United Nations Ambassadors of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States took place on April 3, 1969.

Arab guerrilla leaders have openly proclaimed that they will reject any peace settlement that might be reached by the Big Four or signed by King Hussein or President Nasser.

The Israeli view

Israel has maintained the position, and this was reaffirmed to the study mission by Prime Minister Golda Meir, that the only way to achieve a permanent peace in the Middle East was through direct negotiations between Israel and the Arab States. Any four-power imposed settlement, in the Israeli view, would in the future be repudiated by the Arabs on the grounds that it was imposed upon them and that they therefore were not bound to abide by it. According to the Israelis, other arrangements involving intermediaries were unsuccessful: (1) the Armistice Agreements of 1948-49 were reached through the mediation of a third party, the United Nations, and the Arabs did not abide by the agreements; (2) the 1956-57 conflict was settled through the United Nations and the Arabs violated the cease-fire and the United Nations Emergency Force agreements. Having been "burned" twice, the Israelis insist on direct negotiations and a contractual peace agreement signed by the Arabs. Mediation, they argue, has enabled the Arabs to avoid the recognition of Israel, despite Israel's recognition by the major powers and most of the international community. Direct negotiation will thus force the Arabs to accept the State of Israel.

Israel believes that any settlement arranged or guaranteed by either the Soviet Union or France will inevitably be in conflict with Israeli interests. Rather than accept the word of these two nations, the Israelis would prefer to rely on their own devices, as they have done in the past, and upon the friendship of the United States, of whom the Israelis ask only arms support and a neutralizing of the Soviet Union. Anything less than a directly contracted peace treaty is temporary folly which they believe will only give the Arabs time to prepare for their next aggression against the State of Israel.

The Arab view

The Arab nations have not and indicate they will not recognize what they regard as an alien state forced upon them, planted in the Arab world by the West as an outpost of colonialism. Israel, they maintained, has followed an expansionist policy, expansion at the expense of the Arab States, and any acceptance of the status quo would be a concession to the expansionist policy. The land lost to Israel in the 1967 war must be returned before any agreement can be reached. The Arabs have offered to accept the State of Israel as it existed prior to the June 1967 aggression. The Arab nations have publicly agreed to abide

by the decisions of the international community, as they did in 194849, and 1956-57; they have offered to abide by the decision of the International Court of Justice on the question of free passage through international waters.

The Four-Power view

It is clear that the two parties are far from any settlement since both have stated positions concerning negotiations which seem irreconcilable. It appears that the only course remaining is for the four powers to establish a framework within which the two belligerents may seek a peace. The method of negotiation, direct or indirect is not important in the early stages, just so long as the Israelis and the Arabs begin a dialog which will lead to some settlement of the crisis and a reduction of the tensions in the region. The chances of another war in the Middle East involving the other nations of the world are great and must be avoided. In this context, the four powers recognize the dangers and are willing to take steps which will hopefully reduce or eliminate the possibility of a nuclear world war. It is not the intention of the four powers to impose a peace on the Arabs or the Israelis, but rather to create an atmosphere in which the two sides may mutually discuss their problems and arrive at a workable plan for coexistence.

As might be expected in the midst of important and delicate negotiations, very little has been forthcoming from any of the participants concerning the progress of the talks, the issues being debated, or the outstanding points of contention. Ambassador Jarring has been inactive pending further developments which may afford him an opportunity for renewed efforts. Various observers have speculated on the progress, or lack of it, and there have been several "leaks" of "peace plans" and positions offered by the nations involved. On July 2, 1969, the U.N. Ambassadors of the four powers announced that the meetings would be adjourned until an undisclosed date in order to facilitate bilateral talks between the parties.

Reports indicate that the Soviet- Union and the United States are continuing to meet in Washington and the July trip of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Joseph Sisco to Moscow, Paris, London, and Stockholm is evidence that the talks are continuing. President Nixon's trip to Rumania and his stop in the United Kingdom also suggest that he was pursuing the question of the Middle East at the highest level. After the President's European tour, he said that the positions of the four powers were closer although there still existed areas of disagreement, which he indicated were being investigated. Other diplomatic travelers have included Dr. Mahmud Fawzi of the United Arab Republic who visited the United States and the U.N. in April, Abba Eban's trip to Geneva to see Ambassador Jarring in July, and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko's trip to Cairo in June.

There appear to be several alternatives open to the parties involved in the Middle Eastern dispute. They may continue as is, in a stalemate with fluctuating tensions and the distinct possibility that an incident may set off another war. They may begin direct negotiations as advocated by the Israelis, either with or without the presence of the U.N. mediator. They may allow the four powers to establish the "basis of communication" as President Nixon called it, which could move from

indirect to direct negotiations. They may begin indirect negotiations at a neutral place with a third party, most likely the U.N., acting as a "go-between." Or they may allow the "imposed peace" which everyone seems to fear and no one seems to advocate. Which of these is the most likely to produce a peace and which of these is the preferred method of achieving a peace is a debatable point.

It is generally conceded by Americans that the fate of Israel is linked with the national security interests of the United States. In the Big Four talks on the Middle East conflict the United States will be considered a friend of Israel. At the same time we do not think of the Arabs as enemies. The Soviets, on the other hand, certainly will be considered friends of the Arabs with the Israelis as enemies of the Soviets.

The attempts by the Soviet to create a sphere of influence in the Middle East and threaten the entire southern flank of NATO are obvious. They can be expected to continue exploiting Arab hostility against Israel. The Americans have stated that Israel's vital interests will be preserved and that their withdrawal from occupied areas can occur only by consent of the parties directly concerned, based upon a contractual agreement establishing a peace involving recognized, defensible, and just boundaries.

Whether the Russians are sincerely seeking a relaxation of tensions remains to be seen. At the same time as they profess concern about Middle Eastern peace they keep building up the war potential of radical and irresponsible Arab States that refuse to enter into peace negotiations with Israel.

According to newspaper accounts and observers, the primary point of contention at the present appears to be the question of procedure on withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories occupied in the June 1967 conflict. The Arabs demand an Israeli commitment to complete withdrawal prior to negotiations, the Israelis say they will not agree to any withdrawal until a final settlement has been found and agreed upon. The question of boundaries and border adjustments is probably the second most controversial point, and it is obviously tied to the withdrawal question. The Arabs fear that a partial withdrawal will establish new borders and the Israelis say they cannot withdraw to any point until it is clear what the new borders will be. Most nations, except for the Arabs, seem willing to accept some minor rectification of the boundaries in order to avoid the meandering lines of the armistice agreements, but the extent of the modifications is still open for debate. Another point generally agreed upon is the need to establish demilitarized zones along the border areas between the Arab States and the State of Israel, but again the extent of the zones and the patrolling of the zones by neutral, i.e., U.N., observers is controversial. A major demand of the Arab nations is "justice" for the refugees, which they define as the right of the Palestinian refugees to make a choice between returning to the homes they left in 1948-49 and 1967, or receiving some compensation from Israel for the value of the homes. Israel has agreed to financial compensation with international assistance as part of an overall settlement but rejects any repatriation.

Foreign Minister Abba Eban on this question said that it should no longer be considered refugee support. Those concerned should talk in

terms of economic development. Whatever is suggested to solve the refugee problem should be done without calling it such. Relief merely perpetuates the problem-the money should be spent on training.

The Foreign Minister assured the study mission Israel was prepared to talk about everything in negotiations unconditionally. Other sources of conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis are the rights to Jordan River waters, free passage through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran, the economic boycott imposed against Israel by the Arab nations, protection of religious property and venerated areas, such as cemeteries, the Arab support for the guerrillas and terrorists. The status of the city of Jerusalem is a particularly vexing point, as the Israelis claim the city as their capital and say they will guarantee the access of all pilgrims to the religious shrines, while Jordan wants to regain status in the Holy City, and other Arab States generally oppose Israeli control of the city. The rights of minorities of Jews in Arab countries and of Arabs in Israel is another issue in conflict. The primary obstacle to settling these and other points of contention between the Arabs and the Israelis is the method of negotiation, direct or indirect, with or without third parties, under a four-power guarantee of the settlement or without such a guarantee.

THE CURRENT STATUS OF JERUSALEM

The international community maintains that the U.N. Partition Plan of November 29, 1947 (181(II)), which called for an internationalization of the city of Jerusalem, is still valid and that the subsequent resolutions of the United Nations concerning the status of the city are in general support of the internationalization idea.

The United States supports the 1947 U.N. resolution in substance, opposes unilateral actions tending to change the status of the city, but is willing to consider a settlement mutually acceptable to the parties which, it is expected, would win U.N. endorsement.

Although Israel has officially denied that the city of Jerusalem has been annexed, on June 27, 1967, Israel passed the Law of Administration Ordinance which provided for the application of Israeli law to the eastern portions of the city of Jerusalem. The next day, the Israeli Ministry of Interior issued a decree which extended the municipal boundaries of the Israeli-controlled city of Jerusalem to include the part of Jerusalem controlled by Jordan before the June war. These