Eban: Israel Rejects Uar’s Refusal to Extend Cease-fire; Note to Jarring Released

Foreign Minister Abba Eban said today that Israel rejected Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s refusal to extend the Suez cease-fire but that what mattered was that there should be no renewal of shooting. Eban spoke at a press conference shortly after Sadat announced in Cairo that his government would accept no further extension of the cease fire which expires at midnight tonight, local time – 5 p.m. New York time. Sadat said however that this “did not mean that political action will stop and guns will start shooting.” He said diplomatic peace initiatives will continue. Eban said Israel did not share Sadat’s approach and held that the cease-fire continues to exist by virtue of the Security Council’s resolution of June, 1967 which established the cease-fire that ended the Six-Day War. Eban said that resolution had binding force and could not be abrogated by either party. Sadat said he decided against a further truce extension after a secret visit last week to Moscow. Israel meanwhile released today the full text of its note submitted to United Nations mediator Gunnar Jarring on Feb. 26 for transmission to Cairo (see separate story). Eban said at his press conference that the Israeli note was more positive and constructive than the note Egypt sent to Jarring earlier.

Both notes represented the replies by Israel and Egypt to Jarring’s initiative of Feb. 8 in which he presented both sides with a detailed questionnaire on their respective terms for peace. According to Eban, the Egyptian reply, which has been praised for “sincerity” and reasonableness by some Western diplomats in recent days, was “a negative and parsimonious approach to peace-making.” Reporters, who had the text of the Israeli note, asked Eban why it contained no mention of free navigation through the Straits of Tiran although it stipulated navigation rights for Israeli ships and cargoes through the Suez Canal. Eban replied that Israeli terms stated in the note did not purport to be comprehensive. He conceded that the Sharm el-Sheikh strongpoint which controls navigation through the Straits of Tiran was a vital Israeli interest. The question and Eban’s reply raised a territorial issue, the implication being that Israel was determined to maintain a presence at Sharm el-Sheikh and therefore there was no point in including it in a presentation of peace terms. The Israeli note stated bluntly that Israel would not withdraw to the boundaries that existed on June 4, 1967, the eve of the Six-Day War.

Eban told reporters that this refusal was based on “the clear understanding and assurances that Security Council Resolution 242 (of Nov. 22, 1967) did not mean total withdrawal from all occupied areas.” The Foreign Minister said it was only after receiving these assurances that Israel agreed to accept the resolution. Eban refused to say whether the assurances were given by the United States, by other powers, or by both. But he quoted a statement by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Joseph J. Sisco on July 12, 1970, to the effect that the withdrawal clause in Resolution 242 “did not mean to say withdrawal to the borders of June 5, 1967, but to lines that must be negotiated.” Eban recalled that protracted negotiations preceded the adoption of the resolution. He noted that contrary to Arab insistence, neither “all” nor “the” was placed before the words “occupied areas” in the withdrawal clause. Eban said that Lord Brown of Britain, one of the framers of Resolution 242, had made it clear that the omission of the definite article meant that not all the occupied territories were to be evacuated. He said similar assurances had been received from other countries.