The View From Two Generations

The Middle East leaders with whom Henry Kissinger will soon confer were hosts during the past two weeks to a party of 53 U.S. industrialists and TIME editors and correspondents. In ten Arab capitals, the TIME-sponsored news tour repeatedly heard this message: the U.S., because of its contacts with Israel, must play the key role as Middle East peacemaker. The Arabs also emphasized that they are anxious for closer ties to the U.S. to counterpoint Washington's special relationship with Israel. Nor were they at all hesitant to lecture their visitors on what they perceive as shortcomings in U.S. foreign policy.

Last week the news tour visited two Arab leaders, Saudi Arabia's King Faisal, 68, and Algeria's President Houari Boumedienne, 50. Each, by his own lights, sought to sound a conciliatory note. In another way, the two offered a startling contrast. As Boumedienne told the TIME group, "King Faisal and I have good relations in spite of the fact that he feels committed to one generation and I to another."

Pinning Hopes on the U.S.

Faisal, tall and dour, received the party in a chandeliered reception room of his palace at Riyadh. Instead of fielding questions, the King, in the tradition of Saudi Arabia's absolute monarchy, gave a tour d'horizon. Excerpts:

ON JERUSALEM: We would like to see the expeditious withdrawal of Israel from territory occupied in 1967 and the return to the Palestinians of their legitimate rights. When I say withdrawal, that, ipso facto, includes Jerusalem. In fact, Jerusalem tops the list. After this takes place it is automatic that Communism will have to recede, will have to die on the vine in the area. After this we shall see peace and tranquillity.

ON ZIONISM: An intransigent attitude on the part of the Israeli government in the long run will prove not to have been in the interest of Israel and certainly not in the interest of Jews as a people. Because the longer Israel maintains this obstinate attitude, the more likely it is to evoke the ire, the dissatisfaction, the resentment of the people of the world. That in itself will rub off on the Jewish people, which is something we deplore. The more Zionism resorts to intrigue, whipping up animosity, the more the world by innuendo will blame not just Israel but the Jewish people, some of whom are completely innocent. We consider it logical to expect the good Jews, who are not interested in this kind of expansionist glory, to stand up to Zionism. I know for a fact that in the U.S. there do exist Jewish groups and societies that are opposed to Zionism.

ON U.S. INTERESTS: It is still our genuine hope, in fact we are pinning all our hopes, practically, on our friends the Americans, who will by now, presumably, have seen what is aggressive and what is just. All we ask of our American friends is to side with justice.

This in spite of the fact that statements attributed to Dr. Kissinger had him advocate certain military steps to be taken against the Arab oil-producing countries. Needless to say, we did not expect such threatening words to emerge from the lips of Dr. Kissinger. In contrast to Dr. Kissinger's unexpected--from our point of view--utterances, I would refer you to something that could be considered compensation, namely President Ford's later statement. He said in effect that in spite of your relationship with Israel, your policy should rest before anything else on the interests of the U.S. (TIME, Jan. 20). Mr. [Joseph] Sisco says that the U.S. is giving voluminous aid and assistance to Israel to keep it flexible. So far, we have not seen any proof or any dividends of flexibility in return for this kind of generous deed. The exact opposite has been the case.

It remains our policy, our genuine concern to strengthen Saudi-American relations. It would pain us deeply to see the interests of the U.S. in this area, and certainly in our country, go down the drain. Don't be surprised by our tenacious pinning of our hopes on the U.S., because historically, America has stood for freedom and liberty and the championship of just causes. Even in Viet Nam, the U.S. went across thousands of miles and committed its own forces in defense of South Viet Nam, which was threatened by aggression from North Viet Nam. We read the message. The U.S. should take a similar stand against aggression, against a continuous Israeli expansionist movement.

It may interest you to know that since I am in constant touch with my brethren in other parts of the Arab world I would like to convey to you the assurance they have given me, namely that if the U.S. can bestir itself and really prove helpful, as we think it intends to. in prevailing upon Israel to see the light, to simmer down, to settle down, then all those other Arab countries have assured me that they would like nothing better than to strengthen and deepen relations with the U.S.

A More Positive Role

Algeria's Boumedienne met the TIME group in the Moorish residence constructed for the French governors general of colonial Algeria. The building is now the Palace of the People, used by Boumedienne's socialist government only on ceremonial occasions. In his discourse, Boumedienne was particularly eloquent on the subject of Algerian nationalism. Excerpts:

ON U.S. OIL "STRANGULATION": The U.S. has a right to put this forward as a problem tied to human civilization. But consider: other people are being strangled by hunger. Why do not the U.S., Europe, Canada and Australia produce quantities of grain and meat to forestall hunger? The U.S. in the name of the industrialized world demands a guarantee of obtaining a stream of oil. All right. We also ask these countries not to strangle other countries with food problems. Oil is available; it is even in surplus. You are aware of this, President Ford is aware of this, Kissinger is aware. You are trying to limit consumption by imposing a duty on the Import of oil. So I don't see how there could be a state of strangulation.

ON OIL EMBARGOES: If a war takes place, anything is possible. The important thing is to prevent war. But Arabs did not invent this boycott weapon. How many years have you employed a boycott against Cuba? I'm not an advocate for Castro, but you have imposed this weapon on a very small country. I am not saying that with a war an oil boycott would be inevitable.

ON KISSINGER'S PEACEMAKING:

The U.S. role has to be more positive. Kissinger's policy is a step-by-step approach. This is his business, but we hope the matter will not be frozen once more. There is something called the Palestine cause. It is part of the Arab world, and it cannot be ignored. It is part of any restoration of peace in the area.

ON U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY: The Arabs are not enemies of the U.S. or the American people. Does Israel have such strength that it can forbid Americans to ask Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territory? We do not understand this policy. The problems of the U.S., the problems of Congress, are complex and intricate, but they are not the problems of the Arabs. We have an Israeli occupation. Is it legal or illegal? We should be talking the same language. A new withdrawal in the Sinai will not solve the problem, nor will a withdrawal in the Golan Heights and the West Bank.

It would be pointless to ask the U.S. to be hostile to Israel. But if you can reconcile your interests with those of the Arabs as well as Israel--a difficult equation--then peace will extend to the whole region. We ask you only to treat the Arabs as friends and put aside your big-stick policy. We are in contact with all parties, including the Palestinians. Our position is not rigid or extremist. We are not against moderation. We encouraged the efforts of Dr. Kissinger from the beginning, though it would have been possible for us to create problems. We tried to behave in the most responsible manner. We are a country that has had the experience of war. We lost a tenth of our population during the [independence] war. We tend to be more inclined toward peace than war. The real struggle is against underdevelopment, which prevails throughout the Arab world. Problems of ideology are secondary matters. We know that Saudi Arabia is friendly to the U.S.

ON U.S.-ALGERIAN RELATIONS:

What, on the other hand, are the relations between the U.S. and Algeria? Very important interests are at stake, and it is possible that they may broaden with the speed of lightning.

You should have some new friends. You should not always have allies named Thieu or Lon Nol, friends to whom you have to send B-52s. You can gain friends of a new kind, if you wish, who will be of benefit to you while you are of benefit to them. There is no problem with our relations with the U.S. today. Second, Algeria, which is working rapidly, requires everything--equipment of all sorts in every field. Experts in great numbers, technology, studies --all these things we import. In spite of the increase in oil prices, we need loans. You have greater success in raising money from the Arabs than we do. I obtain credits from U.S. banks more easily than from Arab countries. All we wish is for a relation of friendship and true cooperation. It should be based on frankness and trust and the absence of any kind of complex, whether it be an inferiority complex--which might be ours--or a superiority complex.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.