Behind the Headlines the Continuing Autonomy Negotiations

In the continuing West Bank-Gaza autonomy negotiations, to be resumed April 27 in Herzliya, movement toward agreement hinges on Egypt’s willingness to drop two of its three major proposals and a major change in the third. This outline emerged from the summit conferences President Carter held during the past two weeks with President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Premier Menachem Begin of Israel.

Sadat called for “East Jerusalem” to be considered under the West Bank “Arab sovereignty” with its inhabitants voting for a “self-governing” authority. Sadat also ruled out Jewish settlements in Judaea, Samaria and Gaza, saying that settlements there are “illegal” and “unfounded.” His view of the self-governing “body” with executive, legislative and judicial powers would displace Israeli authority anywhere in the area and, in the Israeli view, set up the foundation for a Palestinian state under domination of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Begin emphasized, particularly in his address to some 1400 Jewish communal leaders here Thursday, that Israel unalterably opposes all three. Jerusalem, — “all of it” — he said, is Israel’s capital; settlements are “legal” and they will continue; and autonomy arrangements for Judaea, Samaria and Gaza could not be set up which would create a state “in everything but name.”

TWO BASIC QUESTIONS

Later, in a press conference Thursday afternoon, Carter said “we are now in the process of negotiating how much authority and power and influence and responsibility to give to the self-governing authority, how exactly it will be composed. Those are the two basic questions, and how that self-governing authority is to be chosen, and once that is decided, Israel is completely ready to withdraw their military government, the civilian authority administration, to withdraw their own forces and to redeploy them in specified security locations, and let those new duties and responsibilities be assumed by Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank-Gaza.”

Carter did not mention settlements which he has called “obstacles to peace,” nor Jerusalem, which he has said should be “undivided” but has not said under whose sovereignty, and he has expressed opposition to creation of a Palestinian state which is foreseen as becoming a Soviet satellite.

However, Carter Administration sources, reinforced by the U.S. vote in favor of the anti-Israel March 1 resolution in the United Nations Security Council, have made it know they are close to the Egyptian viewpoint on all three major elements, and consider Begin intransigent, even thought neither Jerusalem nor settlements are mentioned in the Camp David accords, which do establish Israel’s security as a paramount matter.

TWO ADVANCES SEEN

Carter’s remark, therefore, that in his discussions with Sadat and Begin, “they have never deviated one iota from the exact language and exact provisions of the Camp David accords” has aroused surprise as to why, since that is said to be so, Sadat talks about those issues as he does.

Observers here believe that what possibly may arise from the scheduled 10 days of talks in Herzliya, to be followed by 10 more days in Alexandria, are tow advances. One is the establishment for five years of the size and scope of the “administrative council” — the language of the Camp David accords. The other is agreement — after the council is established — of organizing a “continuing committee” which would discuss matters which could not be resolved before the administrative council is set up.

The committee is mentioned in the Camp David accords to deal with the problems of refugees and “other matters of common concern” which are not specified. U.S. Special Mideast envoy Sol Linowitz is credited by U.S. sources with detecting this phrase as a means of offsetting deadlocks in forming the council. Carter Administration sources consider the committee con handle all matters but Israeli sources have indicated that it is to be confined to “marginal issues,” like water rights.

U.S. sources say the committee would open the way for Jordan to enter the talks and provide a place for a representative of the “administrative council” which would encourage Arab participation. Thus, authority for the committee itself becomes an issue, it was noted. The Israeli Labor Party leader Shimon Peres’ visit to the White House next Thursday is not seen as having on important bearing on the autonomy talks by Israeli sources in Washington. But news reports from Israel, to on extent shared by independent observers here, is that the Peres visit has ominous implications for Begin.

According to these reports, the Carter Administration purportedly believes Begin’s days as Israel’s leader are numbered — a reflection perhaps of Defense Minister Ezer Weizman’s challenge — and that Labor’s return to power is in the offing. They know this is the first time in Israel’s 32 years history that an opposition leader in Israel has been invited to the White House. (See related story, P. 4)

The State Department, however, said that inviting on opposition leader is not unusual. An Israeli source described it as a “courtesy call.” Peres will be in the U.S. on a found-raising mission, the source noted, and thus available for a visit. The source also noted that former Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan went to the White House last month even though he had quit Begin’s cabinet. Begin himself observed, “I just hope that both sides will remember that he (Peres) is the head of the opposition party.”

In any case, according to Israeli sources, no wide differences exist between Begin’s Likudled coalition and the Labor Party on foreign relations policies: Labor supports the Camp David accords; it is equally emphatic on Jewish sovereignty over all of Jerusalem: it was responsible for setting up most of the settlements; and Labor opposes any steps toward creation of a Palestinian state. Hypothetically, it is possible for the Labor Party again to offer Jordan a part of the West Bank out since Jordan has previously rejected such an idea, it is considered unlikely that the offer will be renewed in the near future.

Jordan insists on getting East Jerusalem as its price for a settlement, according to sources here. The principal divergence between Likud and Labor is on whether autonomy for the West Bank would lead to a Palestinian state. Labor seems more apprehensive of such on outcome than Likud.