Senior sources here believe that Egypt might be ready to negotiate a bilateral agreement with Israel if the two countries can reach an accord on a declaration of principles.
They also expect President Carter to present American proposals for a Middle East settlement when he meets with Premier Menachem Begin in Washington next week that will contain aspects of Israel’s own peace plan. The key word in the American concept–which does not appear in Israel’s plan–would be “transition,” the sources said.
They said the U.S. would be prepared to apply Israel’s self-rule plan on the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a transitional arrangement leading ultimately to a greater measure of autonomy for those territories. According to the sources, the Americans hinted at this during the last stages of Assistant Secretary of State Alfred Atherton’s diplomatic shuttles last week.
The sources believe that Egypt has changed its position since January and no longer requires Jordan’s physical presence at the peace talks, apparently because Jordan has proven more reluctant to participate than Cairo had anticipated. The Egyptians, however, have now hardened their demands on the declaration of principles. But despite guarded optimism over possible bilateral negotiations with Egypt, the sources stressed that this did not mean necessarily that Cairo was ready to sign a bilateral peace pact but rather was prepared to continue the negotiating process.
With regard to a declaration of principles, the sources feel that on Carter’s Aswan formula which envisages some Palestinian participation in determining their future, Israel and the U.S. are not for apart. Their widest differences are over the question of withdrawal from the occupied territories.
In that connection, the sources said, Israel fully accepts Security Council Resolution 242 as applying to the West Bank. However, Israel insists that there are various interpretations of 242 and it does not believe its peace plan contradicts the resolution.
The sources noted that Israel’s plan would end the military government on the West Bank and this would be a step in the direction of “withdrawal of military forces” required by Resolution 242. The problem of sovereignty on the West Bank is left open and Israel, for its part, would not implement Israeli sovereignty there, the sources said.
U.S.-ISRAEL ACCORD ON 242 POSSIBLE
(Earlier this week, Israeli Defense Minister Ezer Weizman expressed belief that during his talks with Carter in Washington last Friday he had come to an understanding with the President on Resolution 242. As a result, he said last Sunday in an interview with ABC-TV, “I am sure” that Carter and Begin “will come to an understanding on 242” when the two chief executives meet here next week.
(However, Weizman, who taped the interview last Saturday just before he flew back to Israel after learning of the terrorist assault, did not elaborate on what sort of understanding could be reached, but in reply to a question said he had received assurance from Carter that it was possible. At the same time he defended Israel’s position on the West Bank.
(Last Thursday, Carter said in a press conference that “for any nation now to reject the application of 242 to the occupied territories, including the West Bank, the Sinai, the Golan Heights, would be a very serious blow to the prospects of peace in the Middle East.” Despite this, Carter said “I am not discouraged” about the “major strategic kind of differences” that are involved in Israel’s interpretation of 242 and the Palestinian question.)
FREEZE NEW SINAI SETTLEMENTS
With respect to settlements in the occupied territories, the sources observed that there were different degrees of importance in dealing with settlements in Sinai and those on the West Bank. The sources stressed that Israel insists on its security demands in Sinai, meaning a continued presence at Sharm el-Sheikh, the Rafah salient and the airfields. But the government has decided to freeze new settlements in Sinai, including those planned and approved by the previous government. The only activity permitted is the strengthening of existing settlements.
A more complicated situation exists on the West Bank where the government decided not to freeze settlement activity. However, the sources said, the present system of settlements within army camps, tacitly approved by the Americans until now, is probably nearing its end. It is assumed in Jerusalem that the U.S. will probably not continue to accept this mode of settlement.
The sources explained that the debate in the Cabinet was over doing nothing with regard to settlements or doing a minimum. It was clear, the sources said, that massive settlement is simply not feasible at this time. Although all ministers support settlements in principle, they realize that widespread settlement activity is impossible in the present political climate.
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.
