Egyptian Conditions Unacceptable to Israel, Dinitz Says, but is Confident Treaty Can Be Signed by Ne

Simcha Dinitz, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, affirmed here last night that “there is not one single outstanding issue between us and Egypt to prevent the signing of a peace treaty.” To the applause of some 3000 Jewish leaders from the United States and Canada attending the 47th General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations, Dinitz expressed optimism that despite new conditions Egypt presented during the last few days, as a condition for signing the peace treaty, the treaty would be signed before he returns to Israel next month upon completing his service as Ambassador.

Moreover, “the treaty with Egypt is not the end of the chapter but the beginning of a chain reaction” in the negotiations of peace treaties with the other Arab countries, Dinitz said. The Ambassador did not, however, try to gloss over the fact that new difficulties have developed in the past few days in the treaty negotiating process, but he underscored that, contrary to some media reports, the difficulties were not created by Israel but by the instructions Egyptian Acting Foreign Minister Boutrous Ghali brought back with him from Cairo to Washington, “maybe under the pressure of Baghdad.” This was a reference to the conference of the Arab rejection front in the Iraqi capital. “The new conditions are impossible to meet,” Dinitz said. The condition “which complicated the negotiations,” he said, was the demand for a timetable for establishing autonomy for the West Bank and self-rule for the Palestinians.

CITES DANGER OF TIMETABLE ON WEST BANK ISSUES

The difficulty, he explained, is essentially two-fold: Israel does not have a party with whom to begin negotiating the West Bank and Palestinian issues; to sign a peace treaty with Egypt on this condition could mean that once Israel withdraws from Sinai and

Without alluding to criticism in some Jewish and Israeli circles that the Carter Administration appears to be pressuring Israel to conclude a comprehensive peace agreement, which in Administration thinking is through linkage of Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai to other issues, including the West Bank and the Palestinians, Dinitz declared: “We are for a comprehensive peace. We want to establish a treaty with each of our neighbors. This was Israel’s idea so no one has to coax Israel. The question is not one of a separate peace or comprehensive peace. The question is–if we cannot attain total peace because some of our neighbors will not negotiate with us, should we wait for (Jordan’s King) Hussein or (Syrian President Hafez) Assad or the Palestinians or Saudi Arabia to agree to negotiate with Israel, or go ahead and negotiate with one Arab country which wants to negotiate and thereby lay the basis for future treaties?”

DEFENDS ADMINISTRATION EFFORT

Dinitz called attention to the fact that “we have to face the new reality that none of the Arab countries are willing to negotiate with Israel even after we made far-reaching compromises, far-reaching risks for peace” by agreeing to withdraw from Sinai and the oil fields. However, he added, “I am optimistic that the present peace process will be concluded with Egypt, and also with Jordan and Syria.” During his more than one-hour address, Dinitz did not once mention the Carter Administration’s frequent criticisms and rebukes of Israel in its post Camp David pressures regarding linkage of the two accords reached at the Camp Dvid summit conference. In fact, earlier in the day, he told a press conference that the U.S. “is doing its best to push negotiations forward. The difficulties in the peace treaty process in the last few days are not the making of the United States but by the new demands by Egypt. “Dinitz rejected a reporter’s contention that Carter’s statement in Kansas City last Thursday was a reiteration of linkage and by implication a criticism of Israel for creating new difficulties in the negotiating process.”I read Carter’s statement,” Dinitz replied. “There is nothing in it against Israel. It was incorrectly interpreted by the press.”

PRIMACY OF JERUSALEM FOR JEWS STRESSED

The closest Dinitz came to what could be considered a criticism of the Carter Administration was when he focused on the post-peace realities. Dinitz said that many issues which do not relate to the Egyptian-Israel agreement will be left open. The paramount issue, he said, would be Jerusalem. Affirming that Jerusalem will always be the united capital of the Jewish people, Dinitz declared: “There is historical injustice when some say that Jerusalem is occupied territory.” Without referring to Assistant Secretary of State Harold Saunders, who recently stated that Israel has “occupied” East Jerusalem since the Six-Day War, while Jordan “administered” East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, Dinitz said that Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan for 19 years while Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 2000 years. To the rousing applause of the audience, Dinitz stated: “Moslems have Mecca and Medina and then Jerusalem; Catholics have many capitals and then Jerusalem; Catholics have the Vatican and then Jerusalem; the Jews have Jerusalem, and then Jerusalem, and Jerusalem, and Jerusalem.”

MORTON MANDEL OF CLEVELAND NEW CJF PRESIDENT

Meanwhile, Morton L. Mandel, a prominent Cleveland industrialist, civic and Jewish community leader, was elected president of the CJF at the General Assembly, which closed today. He succeeded Jerold C. Hoffberger, of Baltimore, who served the maximum three-year term of office. Mandel was a CJF vice president since 1976 and is a former president of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland and of the Cleveland Jewish Community Center. He is currently president of the Cleveland United Way. He is also a past president of the National Jewish Welfare Board and now serves as president of the World Confederation of Jewish Community Centers.