Autonomy Talks Officially Open Vance Seems to Lean to Egyptian Views

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who spoke for the United States at the formal opening of the Egyptian-Israeli talks on Palestinian autonomy in Beersheba Friday, appeared to be closer to the Egyptian position than the Israeli on that sensitive issue. In his speech, Vance employed the nomenclature of Egypt’s Defense Minister, Kamal Hassan Ali, referring to the “self-governing authority” to be established under autonomy on the West Bank and Gaza Strip rather than to an. “administrative council” which is the term used by Israel.

The opening session was marred by the last minute decision of Egyptian Premier Mustapha Khalil not to attend. Hassan Ali spoke for Egypt and Interior Minister Yosef Burg, head of the Israeli negotiating team, for his country. The session was devated to speeches, not negotiations. The latter are expected to begin when the two sides meet again in Alexandria June 6-7.

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES AVOIDED

All three diplomats spoke with restraint. Hassan Air avoided any reference to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Burg, for his part, did not explicitly demand the right of continued free settlement and land expropriation by Israel. The differences between the Egyptian and Israeli were most apparent however in their references to Jerusalem. Burg spoke of the city as “the eternal capital of Israel” while Hassan Ali noted that “Arab Jerusalem” is to be subject to the “principle of inadmissability of the acquisition of territory taken by war” according to Security Council Resolution 242. He stressed that all Israeli actions taken to change the area’s status are “null and void.” But he did not specifically demand that East Jerusalem which he referred to as “Arab Jerusalem,” be incorporated under the future autonomous authority.

It was Vance’s remarks that aroused the greatest interest in Israel and consternation in some quarters here. Following are excerpts from the Secretary of State’s speech.

“The range of issues involved in the Palestinian problem is far too complex to be resolved all at once. The only realistic approach there fore is to establish a transitional period, during which time the decisions that need to be made can be dealt with in a measured and logical way. The approach was agreed by Egypt and Israel at Camp David and they have invited other parties to the Arab-Israel conflict to support it and join the negotiations.

“We regret the absence of the Kingdom of Jordan and of Palestinian representatives from these proceedings today. If we do not agree with their decision not to attend at this time, we nevertheless respect-their right to have a different.

We want to make it clear that the invitation to them to join us remains open. At the same time their absence need not check the progress of these negotiations. We are determined to proceed and to show that these negotiations can make progress towards the objectives which Jordan and the Palestinians hold no less than those of us at this table.

STRESSES RIGHTS OF PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

“I want to assure you in the strongest possible terms that the United States understands the deep emotion and interests on all sides that are touched by the process which begins today. For Egypt and the Arab world, the primary focus is upon the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. No peace can either be just or secure for any participant, if it does not resolve this problem in its broadest sense. In the United States, we believe that the Palestinian people must have the right for themselves and their descendants to live with dignity and freedom, and with opportunity for economic fulfillment and political expression.

“For Israel, meanwhile, a lasting-solution to the Palestinian question and the wider Arab-Israeli conflict will be possible only if there is genoine acceptance of its right to live in peace and security. We must also go beyond these negotiations to the broader aspects of the Palestinian problem. We must a start to deal with the problem of Palestinians living outside the West Bank and Gaza. They, too, must know that an accepted and respected place exists for them within the international community.

ISRAEL’S SECURITY CENTRAL FEATURE

“Second, the security of Israel is equally a central feature of the Camp David framework. As we seek ways to resolve the range of issues of the West Bank and Gaza, we must recognize that Israel’s security is of critical importance to the success of these negotiations because of the special geographic and demographic factors involved. The negotiators must be sensitive to these concerns, and imaginative and far-sighted in proposing ways to meet them.

“Third it is worth restating that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 remains the basic statement of principles covering a peace settlement. The Camp David fromeworks are built upon it. It establishes as the fundamental equation for peace, withdrawal from occupied territories in exchange for commitments to live at peace with Israel within secure and recognized boundaries. It is axiomatic that Resolution 242 applies to all fronts of the conflict. The negotiating history of the Resolution leave no doubt that this was the understanding of all parties when the Resolution was passed in 1967 . . . I am convinced that a just and secure settlement of the Palestinian question is not beyond the capabilities of men and women of compassion and good will, who will set their hand to the task. I have no doubt that solutions which the majority of Palestinians and other Arabs will consider fair can be fashioned in negotiations, and in ways that answer as well the fundamental concerns for the security of Israel.”