SETTLEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Last week the synthesis of Washington's thinking on the questions leading up to a long-range settlement in the Middle East was going like this:

What is the next move? First, confirm peace. Work through the United Nations to get the British, the French and the Israelis out of the Suez and the Sinai Peninsula. Then clear the Suez Canal and get oil flowing as soon as possible to Western Europe.

How should the Suez Canal he cleared? The job of removing the 47 sunken ships should be done under U.N. auspices. Danish and Norwegian salvage companies have already been contracted, and parts of the six-month job will be sublet among other countries. To avoid outbursts of Arab resentment, e.g., further sabotage of oil lines, the job should probably be done without the aid of Britain and France.

How should Europe's oil shortage be met? Already private U.S. companies are selling oil to Europe, but the Europeans are having to pay with scarce dollars. Once Britain and France have withdrawn from Egypt, the U.S. will try to work out a way of providing dollar credit--probably on an all-Western-Europe basis, working through Western Europe's Organization for European Economic Cooperation.

What sort of permanent Suez settlement is desirable? The starting place for negotiations should be the six principles adopted by the U.N. six weeks ago (TIME, Oct. 22)--principles that Egypt's Nasser has tentatively accepted. The U.S. is willing to accept Egypt's sovereignty over the canal, but international (including Israeli) access to the canal must be guaranteed, and the canal must specifically be "isolated" from the politics of any one country.

Pending a general settlement, who occupies such contested geographical points as the Gaza strip and the strategic islands in the Gulf of Aqaha? To save face for both sides, the U.N. might well administer Gaza temporarily (where 217,000 Arab refugees are already on the U.N. dole). On the other hand, the Egyptian islands and adjacent coastline of the Gulf of Aqaba should go back to Egypt, but might well be demilitarized.

Can there be a basic settlement between Israel and Egypt? Once both sides realize that both nations are there to stay (backed by the U.N. and U.S. against anybody's aggression), negotiation of a settlement on borders and main issues should be mandatory. The new situation in the Middle East, mixed up as it is, offers new opportunity and new impetus for another try at U.S.-sponsored negotiation.

Who gets Jerusalem and the long-contested Holy Places? A U.N. resolution of 1949 proposed internationalization of Jerusalem, but the U.S. is willing to support a current watered-down version that guarantees internationalization of the Holy Places. Still needed: a thoroughgoing plan for internationalizing the city itself.

What about the Arab refugees from Israel? Israel has refused to admit the 217,000 Arab refugees in the Gaza strip, fearing a fifth column; the Arab countries have lagged in resettling them, keeping them in a disgruntled corps to dramatize the Arab contention that Israel is not permanent and that the refugees will in time go home. It is time to work out a resettlement plan under which the Israelis should be prevailed upon to take back the refugees in sizable numbers, or contribute sizably toward their resettlement in Arab lands. The U.S. stands ready to help with the cost of the resettlement.

Will a border settlement hold? The U.S. has said that it would be ready to guarantee borders accepted by the Arab states and Israel.

What about Nasser? His record of impetuous, harmful, demagogic action still stands. But in the light of all that has happened since Oct. 29, the U.S. does not, as of now, accept the British-French thesis that Nasser must go. If he is toppled, who will replace him? Would this replacement enhance or detract from the much-needed stability in the Middle East? The U.S. is willing to grant him some positive credit if he sticks by his newly announced devotion to the U.N. and international order (see FOREIGN NEWS), will take a fresh, hard look if he goes back to dabbling with the Russians and Russian volunteers.

What about the other Moslem states? Husky Iraq, shaky Jordan, pro-Communist Syria, half-Christian Lebanon, oil-rich Saudi Arabia, pro-western Turkey and Iran, all represent separate influences or vacuums of their own. The U.S. is concerned most about Syria and Jordan because neither has a government strong enough to ensure stability. The U.S. hopes that a strong Iraq will exercise a significant gravitational force in the area, is willing then to let nature take its course with Syria and Jordan.

What is the foundation of any permanent Middle East settlement? Stability--out of which Western Europe can be assured of its lifeblood oil and the Arabs of the just return from their oil resources; out of which the Arabs can derive from the U.S. such social, political, legal and economic help as they desire and as the U.S. can feasibly offer. It is now open to the U.S. to assure both the Arabs and Israelis--perhaps by presidential declaration--of sustained and continuing U.S. interest in the search for peace and the rules of order in the Middle East.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.