The first phase of the Arab-Israeli peace conference opened and closed here over the weekend. The event that was a quarter of a century in the making saw Israelis and Arabs sitting face to face for the first time since the State of Israel was established. The suspicion, bitterness and mutual antagonism arising from a generation of hot and cold war, capped by the fierce and costly battles of last Oct 6-22, was clearly evident in the formal opening speeches Friday by the foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan and Israel. But Saturday’s brief — 20 minute — closed-door session before phase one adjourned was reported to have been surprisingly cordial and the atmosphere was decidedly more hopeful than when the conference began.
United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim who presided at the first phase, summed up the feelings of all of the participants when he said on departing from Geneva today, “For the first time we have a real chance for peace in the Middle East.” The opening phase chalked up several agreements – one was to set up a special Israeli-Egyptian military commission to unravel the knotty problem of disengagement of military forces along the Suez Canal. The conference also agreed to set up working parties or subcommittees to start discussing individual issues. Each of the attending foreign ministers is leaving behind here delegates of ambassadorial rank to represent them when the full conference resumes again early next year. No date has been announced but it is generally believed that the conference will convene again on or about Jan. 7, 1974. The joint military committee, which will consist of Israeli and Egyptian officers of general rank and their aides, is expected to convene shortly after the Christmas holiday. While names was announced sources here said the talks would get underway no later than Dec. 27, possibly a day earlier.
The ornate Palais Des Nations, the home of the UN in Geneva and originally the home of the League of Nations, was quiet today as the principals returned to their respective capitals, U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger flew back to Washington last night to report to President Nixon. Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei. Gromyko will depart for Moscow tomorrow. Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban was leaving Geneva today. Zaid el-Rifai, the Jordanian Foreign Minister, left this morning. The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ismail Fahmy, met today with U.S. Ambassador at Large Ellsworth Bunker who will take Kissinger’s place when the peace conference reconvenes. The Egyptian delegate said at a press briefing after yesterday’s closed door session, “The ice has been broken and finally the Egyptians and Israelis can sit down together to settle the long strife in the Middle East.”
The prospects for the Geneva conference seemed to be clearly enhanced by the high status of its promoters and sponsors. Officially under UN auspices, it is in fact the creation of U.S.-Soviet agreement and Kissinger is conceded to be its chief architect. Israeli circles here said they were satisfied with Kissinger’s address Friday. They said that he spoke as a “mediator.” The American diplomat was indeed even-handed in his formal presentation. He quoted an Arab proverb saying, “The past is now dead.” He also quoted the Jewish sage, Hillel, “who speaking for all mankind expressed this problem well, Im lo ani li az me li?-If I am not for myself who is for me, but if I am for myself alone who am I.”
Kissinger said that one of the first tasks of the conference was to strengthen the cease-fire agreement which remains fragile. “A new renewal of hostilities would be both foolhardy and dangerous.” he said. He defined the American attitude as doing all it can to achieve a peace agreement. Kissinger said that “A peace agreement must include these elements: withdrawals, recognized frontiers, security arrangements, guarantees, a settlement of the legitimate interests of the Palestinians and a recognition that Jerusalem contains places considered holy by three great religions.” The American Secretary of State observed in conclusion that the future of the Middle East rests “in the hands of the Israeli and Arab governments including those who are absent who, we all hope, will join us soon.” His reference was to Syria which has boycotted the Geneva talks.
SOVIET HOSTILITY, HARSHNESS TOWARD ISRAEL MUTED
The conference was opened by Waldheim at 11:10 a.m. local time Friday, 40 minutes late. This delay was occasioned by a last minute dispute over the seating arrangement. The Arabs had demanded that the Israeli delegation be seated next to the empty chairs of the absent Syrians to symbolically mark Israel’s ostracism. Israel rejected the arrangement. Waldheim conferred for a half hour with the U.S. and Soviet leaders to resolve the dispute. At their intervention. it was agreed that Israel would be seated between the U.S. and UN delegations, diagonally across the council chamber from the Egyptian delegation.
Gromyko’s speech Friday contained not the slightest hint that Moscow has altered its policy of all-out support of its Arab friends. But observers here noted that the harshness and hostility toward Israel that has typified so many Soviet speeches about the Middle East at the UN and other forums was missing. Gromyko said that Russia harbored no “hatred” of Israel and recalled that the Soviet Union supported the creation of the Jewish State and recognizes its “right to live in peace” and be assured of its integrity. “Contrary to certain affirmations, the soviet Union has never doubted or questioned Israel’s right to exist.” Gromyko said. He and Eban met for 80 minutes Friday evening. It was the first meeting between top level Israeli and Soviet diplomats since 1966 Sources here said it was cordial and frank.
Waldheim opened the conference by stressing that it “has a unique opportunity to come to grips with a most difficult, dangerous and complex international problem.” He warned. however, that if the opportunity is not seized, the world will “inevitably be confronted once again with a dangerous. and highly explosive situation in the Middle East.” both the Egyptian and Jordanian ministers repeated in their speeches, the old Arab conditions for peace: Total withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, return of East Jerusalem and the settlement of the Palestinian question on the basis of the Palestinian self-determination. The Jordanian delegate, er-Rifai, accused Israel of “deportations, expulsions and maltreatment” of the Arab civilians living under Israeli occupation. He stressed that Jordan will “not accept a partial agreement with Israel on questions which interest all the Arabs.”
Fahmy accused Israel of “relying on force.” Turning to Israel’s Abba Eban he said that peace will come when Israel will give up using force “and would at long last agree to give back all the occupied Arab territories including the part of Jerusalem occupied since 1967.” He warned that should the conference fail to reach an agreement on these principles “the Arabs would have to use other means to recuperate the lands which they have lost” but added that he hoped that the Geneva conference will succeed. An appropriate conclusion, said the Egyptian minister, would include the assurance of political inviolability for all the states, territorial integrity, political independence and appropriate guarantees which could be give by either the United Nations, the big powers or even the two together.
Eban, apparently taken aback by the violence of the Arab attacks, asked to address the meeting in the afternoon. He reportedly rephrased some of his sentences during this recess to remind the Arabs of some bitter realities. In the afternoon, Eban reminded the conference that Israel has been the butt of “an emotional assault which goes far beyond the political context.” He said that this. “sweeps all human solidarities aside” and recalled the Arab endorsement of the Nazi type anti-Jewish myths He charged the Arabs with being so hate filled that this leads them “to mutilation of Israeli soldiers in the field, murder and torture of Israeli POWs and culminated in Syria’s sadistic refusal to carry out the Geneva Convention.”
ISRAEL IS AN ORGANIC PART OF THE MIDDLE EAST
Eban stressed that Israel “is not alien to the Middle East as it is an organic part of its texture and memory.” He said that Israel’s contributions to the area “are too valuable to be swept away.” Eban outlined Israel’s aims at the conference as a peace treaty “whose meaning is not exhausted by the absence of war. Peace also commits us to positive obligations.” He said that the treaty for which Israel hopes would provide for the permanent elimination of hostility, blockade and boycott.” He said that the peace treaty “to be negotiated with each neighboring state” should contain an agreement on boundaries but added that for Israel “the test will be the defensibility of the new frontiers.” He said that the experience of 1973 “confirmed our view that peace makers should not reconstruct vulnerable and inflammatory situations.” Eban defined Israel’s “overriding theme in peace discussions as security” and said that Israel will forward to the conference detailed proposals. Turning to Jerusalem, the Israeli delegate said that Israel does “not wish to exercise exclusive jurisdiction or unilateral responsibility in the holy places of Christendom and Islam which should be under the administration of those who hold them sacred.” Israel, he said, would be willing to discuss an agreement providing for free access and pilgrimage to the holy places. He said that Syria’s absence is normal as that country “is not yet qualified to participate at the peace conference”because of its lack of “all human decency.”
Turning to the Palestinian issue, Eban said that solutions can be found after a peace treaty will have removed the political incentives for keeping the problem alive. Israel, he said, will define at an appropriate stage its contribution to an international and regional effort for refugee settlement. He rapped Palestinian organizations such as the PLO for “being driving forces in the wave of permissive violence that has carried, the effects of the Middle East war round the world.” The Israeli minister stressed Israel’s desire for peace and preparedness to negotiate all issues without prior conditions.
A violent Egyptian attack on Israel followed as Fahmy replied. He accused Israel of having carried out “mass murders and atrocities” enumerating a long list of Israeli “crimes” stretching from Dir Yassin to the Beirut raids against Palestinian installations there. Eban, though offered a right of reply, declined to do so. Israeli sources later said that the minister took this decision “As we are at a peace conference and not at the Security Council where we engage in verbal duels.” The public part of the conference concluded as dusk fell over Geneva. The real test, delegates here said. will come when the various sides will start dealing with concrete’ issues such as the disengagement of forces on the Suez Canal.
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.
