“We will not give up the (Mitle and Gidi) passes so that Egypt can make war on us better,” Defense Minister Shimon Peres said today in an interview in “Haaretz.”
If Egypt’s latest proposal proved to be its last–then that would be proof that Egypt does not want an agreement, Peres said. He added that Israel would have no more to offer. “We have gone very very far indeed,” he said. Asked if the United States might not pressure Israel into further concessions, the Minister would only answer “The U.S. very much wants an agreement.”
The interview–with Haaretz columnist Yoel Marcus–was held after the latest Egyptian responses were conveyed to Israel. Peres sought to agree with Premier Yitzhak Rabin’s assessment that they were a bargaining posture rather than Cairo’s last word. The Defense Minister plainly did not want to be seen differing with the Premier, Marcus wrote, especially when reports of differences between them had been appearing in the press.
But even if the Egyptian position was a tactical ploy, it must “cast a question mark” over Egypt’s desire to reach a settlement, Peres said. He said it totally ignored Israel, seeking “everything and offered nothing.” How could one conclude an agreement with a country which only five minutes before one had termed “a dagger?” he asked. With daggers you don’t make agreements,” Peres noted. This was a reference to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s characterization of Israel in his television speech last week.
WON’T BE SQUEEZED ON FURTHER CONCESSIONS
If Sadat thought his latest position could prompt Washington into squeezing further concessions from Jerusalem, he was mistaken, Peres continued. Israel had been extremely forthcoming and he could not imagine a retreat from its present position, Peres said. Israel had also “made it clear” that this was its last word, he stressed. Marcus added: “What he (Peres) did not say was that the Israeli position had in fact been praised by the Americans for its flexibility.
Peres insisted that Israel had not abandoned completely the strategic Sinai passes. Under her proposal, Israel would retain a strategic role in the passes within “a new positioning of our forces. But anyway,” the Minister added, “the whole matter seems theoretical now to some extent, in view of the Egyptian response.”
For Israel, with its army built on a large force of reserves and a small force of regulars, the Mitle and Gidi Passes were critically important in a no-war no-peace situation to hold back an enemy assault while the reserves were called up, Peres explained.
SILENT ON U.S. PRESENCE ISSUE
Since Egypt had refused to end that situation by agreeing to a non-belligerency pact, and at the same time demanded an Israeli withdrawal from the passes, Israel had proposed that the passes be ceded to an objective third party, the U.S., which was not susceptible to the whims of either side, Peres said. He noted Israel’s past bitter experience with UN troops who had been preemptorily removed by Egypt in May 1967.
Peres would not reveal Egypt’s precise stand on the U.S. presence issue. Plainly Cairo had rejected the Israeli proposal–though it was not clear from his interview whether Egypt would tolerate some American technicians in the passes. On another occasion, Marcus recalled, Peres reportedly said that four American civilians were worth 1000 United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) men in the passes. For Peres, Marcus said, the continued Israeli occupation of the Umm Khashiba surveillance station was a prerequisite for an accord. (Egypt has reportedly objected to this.)
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.
