Israeli leaders were wrestling with two major diplomatic problems today and the possibility of a serious rift with Washington arising from one of them. The Cabinet suspended all other business and devoted its regular session yesterday to the latest move by the United Nations mediator, Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring, who, Israel contends, exceeded the authority of his mandate from the Security Council in the letters he submitted last week to Israel and Egypt. Israelis were also reacting to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s elaboration of his offer to reopen the Suez Canal provided Israel withdraws its forces from the waterway. The Israelis view the Sadat proposal as a cunning ploy to force Israel’s withdrawal without a peace settlement but fear that the Egyptian leader may have won world opinion to his side, at least temporarily. The latest Jarring move created the gravest misgivings here. Israel saw it as a “proposal” that it agree to return to the pre-June, 1967 boundaries before a peace settlement. Israeli leaders claimed that when they agreed to resume the Jarring talks last month it was with the specific understanding that the Swedish diplomat would continue his role as a mediator without advancing “solutions.” Premier Golda Meir and Foreign Minister Abba Eban made their attitude clear to United States Ambassador Walworth Barbour at a meeting last Friday.
But the U.S. has disagreed sharply with Israel’s view of the Jarring move. Obviously speaking for the Administration. Assistant Secretary of State Joseph J. Sisco said on the CBS television program ” Face the Nation” yesterday that Jarring “has a very broad mandate and is acting strictly in accord with that mandate.” He declared that the time has come for both parties to make “painful compromises” and take “risks for peace.” Sisco noted that Security Council Resolution 242, mandating Dr. Jarring “to promote an agreement between the two parties,” and the U.S. peace initiative of June 1970, gives the UN mediator “very wide latitude indeed.” Since both sides are committed to the Council resolution and the U.S. initiative, “no procedures are barred,” Sisco added. Israeli diplomatic circles told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency today that there was nothing “surprising” in Sisco’s remarks. They said that Israel has been aware of the American attitude and is convinced that Washington was making a serious error in backing the Jarring move. The Cabinet meets again on Thursday. Meanwhile, the Knesset Presidium refused to recognize a contention by two opposition factions today that the latest Jarring move created a situation of urgency, and rejected their demand for an immediate full-dress Knesset debate. The demand was made by Gahal and the State List. The Presidium stated that the Jarring move would not be taken up during the current session unless the Government presented the chamber with a policy statement or foreign affairs alluding to it.
NO HINT OF INTENTION TO NEGOTIATE OR CONCLUDE PEACE IN LATEST SADAT PROPOSALS
Of more immediate concern was Sadat’s interview published today in Newsweek magazine. The Egyptian President said that in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to a line behind El Arish, he would be prepared to re-open the Suez Canal within six months. El Arish, a coastal town in eastern Sinai, is only 30 miles from the old Israeli-Egyptian border and withdrawal to that point would be tantamount to withdrawal from almost all of the Sinai peninsula. Sadat told Newsweek’s senior editor, Arnaud de Borchgrave, that he was prepared to accept an international force at Sharm el-Sheikh, the strongpoint on the southern tip of the Sinai peninsula which controls the Strait of Tiran and access to Israel’s port of Eilat. Sadat also said that if Israel agreed to withdrawal, he would agree to prolong the current 30-day cease-fire extension to a “fixed date.” The cease-fire is to expire on March 7. On the question of Israel’s use of the Suez Canal, Sadat told the American editor that he would agree on condition that Israel first “fulfilled her obligations under the UN resolutions.” Sadat was, in effect, re-stating Egypt’s position that Israel’s use of the water way could only follow a solution of the Palestinian refugee problem. Israelis were quick to point out that Sadat gave no hint of any intention to conclude peace or negotiate peace with Israel. “Every demand leaves an opening for a new demand,” one Israeli source told the JTA today.
An official communique issued after yesterday’s Cabinet session said that Israel will continue “to pursue the course initiated by her upon the resumption of Ambassador Jarring’s mission at the beginning of January, 1971.” It stated that Israel continues to await Egypt’s reply to its latest memorandum which was submitted to Cairo through Dr. Jarring more than a week ago. The subsequent Jarring letters to Jerusalem and Cairo were not referred to directly but the communique made it clear that Israel does not consider itself bound by any obligations to Dr. Jarring’s proposals. There was no official information on the content of the Jarring letter which caused consternation in Jerusalem. Unconfirmed reports published last week claimed that he suggested an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai peninsula, the stationing of a UN force at Sharm el-Sheikh and Israeli reaction of the Gaza Strip. Knowledgeable observers said it was not likely that Dr. Jarring made outright proposals on these subjects but that he may have submitted one or more questions so phrased as to imply that he favored a certain course of action. His letter to Cairo reportedly queried the Egyptian Government on its willingness to make formal peace with Israel and recognize its boundaries and sovereignty. There was little comment from Cairo on the latest Jarring move but there were indications that Egyptian diplomats were pleased with it.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
