Door Left Open for Further Study of Sadat Plan, but No Withdrawal Before Peace Accord

Premier Golda Meir left the door open today to further examination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s proposal to reopen the Suez Canal. But she made it clear that Israel will not withdraw its forces from the waterway before a firm peace settlement is achieved. In a major political address to the Knesset, Mrs. Meir said “Our position has not changed. We view with favor the reopening of the Canal to free navigation and will favorably discuss proposals aimed at restoring civilian life in this area to normalcy and to effect a mutual de-escalation of the military build-up.” But she added, “to me it seems strange to propose the withdrawal of our forces from the Canal outside the framework of agreed arrangements for the absolute termination of the war.” She said that President Sadat’s proposal “in its present version” was “obscure” and “simply not clear. The essence is missing.” She indicated however, the Israel was prepared to explore it and all other outstanding issues with Egypt. “Direct face-to-face contact between us would make it easier to examine every proposal on Egypt’s part or on Israel’s part with the purpose of achieving unequivocal agreements on all provisions, including the conditions and times for the implementation of the agreements,” Mrs. Meir said, By late this afternoon an acrimonious debate was still going on in the Knesset over Mrs. Meir’s statement. Menachem Beigin, leader of the opposition Gahal faction, called Sadat’s proposal an “ultimatum” and demanded that Israel reply to it with “an absolute rejection.”

Diplomatic observers in Jerusalem had the impression tonight that Premier Meir was keeping the Sadat proposal alive but that its fate hinged on what meaning Israel would place on it. Sources said the offer was doomed if Egypt insisted on a total Israeli withdrawal from certain areas. On the other hand, if Sadat has in mind a mutual reduction of forces along the waterway, even on a large scale, he would have a talking point with Israel, the sources said. Mrs. Meir claimed that Sadat’s proposal, as he presented it to the Egyptian National Assembly last Thursday, tried to achieve a strategic advantage without making any actual progress toward peace. “I do not propose to detail at this time the serious questions which the President of Egypt has left obscure,” the Premier said. “In return for the withdrawal of Israel’s defense forces, Egypt does not promise to implement the main clause of the Security Council’s Resolution (242) which is the achievement of a peace agreement between the parties and of secure and agreed borders,” she said, Mrs. Meir continued, “The sole return that is offered us is to begin at once with the clearing of the Canal and its reopening for navigation–this too without making it clear that navigation will be free and that within the framework of the service that is to be rendered to the world economy, Israel’s right to free navigation in the Canal would also be honored.” She emphasized, “I must make it unequivocally clear that Israel is wholeheartedly prepared to lend its support to the opening of the Canal to free international shipping for all states, including Israel. It is not we who are responsible for blocking the canal.”

PREMIER REJECTS ARAB CHARGE THAT ISRAEL IS TRYING TO EVADE DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

Mrs. Meir criticized Sadat for the “threat imposed” by his acceptance of a 30-day extension of the cease-fire, She said that was tantamount to announcing a date for the resumption of hostilities. “It is too short a period for us to be complacent,” she said, adding that “Our strength grows and continues to grow and if war should be forced upon us we will face it and we will win.” Mrs. Meir. noted with satisfaction that the United States government did not land its hand to attempts to place difficulties in the way of the Jarring talks by discussions of substitutes for a peace settlement or by trying to saddle Jarring with instructions. But she said Israel had “serious concern” about Washington’s recent expression of readiness to discuss Big Power guarantees of a future Mideast peace settlement. She said Israel felt this way even though the U.S. had stressed that it did not view guarantees as a substitute for a peace settlement. She urged the U.S. government not to lend its support to “any steps that might be abused for evading peace.” Mrs. Meir rejected charges by the Arab states that Israel was trying to evade discussion of outstanding issues between them. She claimed that the opposite was true, that it was the Arabs who failed to present Jarring with direct answers to Israeli proposals. She said Arab documents always referred in very general terms to peace for the entire region, an expression that would seem to exclude Israel from the ranks of those nations to which regional peace should apply.

Beigin contended that “the reopening of the Suez Canal would serve the imperialist purpose of the Soviet Union” by shortening the voyage of Soviet warships from Odessa to the Far East by 16 days. Chaim Zadok, of the Labor Party, said Israel could not withdraw without peace, but discussions should be continued. Itzhak Raphael, of the National Religious Party, thought the Sadat proposal had put an end to the Jarring talks, but that under the circumstances the talks were the only thing left. Meir Yaari, chairman of Mapam, said he favored a controlled thinning out of forces on both sides of the Canal. He said Israel should state clearly what its minimum demand was. Shlomo Lorintz, of the Agudat Israel, thought Israel should continue to negotiate even if no peace was in sight. Gideon Hausner, of the Independent Liberals, urged the government to reject any foreign guarantees. Yigal Horovitz, of the State List, said his party would support the government’s policy. Labor MK Moshe Carmel, warned that Israel must not be tempted to withdraw because her security would be jeopardized, Meir Wilner, of the pro-Moscow Rakach Communists charged that Israel’s refusal to withdraw was a result of Jerusalem serving American interests. Mordechai Surkiss, of the Labor Party, wanted the government to reject Sadat’s proposal out of hand. Sheikh Jaber Maudi, a Druze MK, expressed regret that Sadat’s speech hadn’t contained a single reference to peace.