The Israeli government, which has formally endorsed Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger’s step-by-step approach to a second-stage agreement with Egypt in Sinai, appears nevertheless to be responding, if ever so subtly, to the influence of those of its members who view a return to the Geneva peace conference inevitable and argue that it would be unwise to make territorial concessions now unless iron-clad political concessions are forthcoming from Egypt–which is considered to be highly unlikely at this stage.
Addressing the Knesset today, shortly after Kissinger’s departure for Cairo, Premier Yitzhak Rabin elaborated on remarks he made in an ABC-TV interview broadcast in the U.S. Monday. He said he would “recommend” ceding the Gidi and Mitle passes and the Abu Rodeis oil fields to Egypt if the latter would enter into a formal non-belligerency pact with Israel. That condition was not necessarily implicit in the interview and observers here saw Rabin’s Knesset statement as a hardening of Israel’s position–tactically if not strategically.
Rabin said “It would be the happiest day of my life, both as Prime Minister and as a former Chief of Staff” were the Egyptians to agree to these terms. In effect, it would mean a signed commitment from Cairo renouncing war and undertaking not to become involved in future developments between Israel and its other Arab neighbors. It would also mean concrete arrangements for the demilitarization of areas vacated by Israel. Rabin said he would be glad to cede the passes and oil fields on those terms and that he was sure the great majority of the nation would support such an agreement.
The fact that Rabin has publicly spelled out what Israel demands of Egypt by way of political concessions, was viewed as a warning to Cairo. Observers believe it resulted from the quiet but persistent campaign Defense Minister Shimon Peres is waging against Kissinger’s step-by-step approach rather than the Premier’s response to the strident cries of “give-aways” from the Likud opposition.
PERES FAVORS GENEVA TALKS
Peres has taken an increasingly sceptical view of the Kissinger approach in recent weeks. While he has been careful, during Cabinet meetings and in the talks with Kissinger this week, not to let his private views show through, he and his close associates have expressed their feelings in private conversations that Egypt is not likely to offer acceptable terms. In that case, they say, it would be tactically wise for Israel to say at this stage that it regarded the Geneva conference as at least an equally realistic and feasible approach to the next stage of peace negotiations.
Peres’ associates have said privately that while the original rationale of the step-by-step approach, advanced by Kissinger during the past year, could avert or delay the revival of the Geneva parley, it was now recognized in Washington and elsewhere that the resumption of the talks at Geneva is inevitable and soon. They say that Israel must not give up its trump cards (the Sinai passes and oil fields) now in exchange for transient political commitments when the prospects for an overall peace conference in Geneva are increasingly likely.
They also say it is better that Israel announce now that it does not fear the Geneva talks and does not regard them as the inevitable fore-runner of a fifth Middle East war. Israel should say that it is prepared to make its case in Geneva for a full, formal peace within secure borders. Similar views have been expressed by former Foreign Minister Abba Eban. According to well placed sources here, Peres’ thinking influenced Israel’s presentation in its long round of talks with Kissinger this week. Time and again, the Israeli negotiators stressed their demand for significant political concessions from Egypt in return for Israeli withdrawals.
LIKUD ALSO LEANING TOWARD GENEVA TALKS
The Likud opposition also seems to favor a return to Geneva, “If we say the right things there,” according to Likud leader Menachem Beigin. Beigin told the Knesset today that Israeli negotiators at Geneva must stress “our right to this land and our right under international law not to withdraw from any cease-fire line without a full peace treaty.”
He denied that a failure at Geneva would make a new Arab-Israeli war inevitable, unless Israel allowed itself to be caught unprepared. By keeping up its guard, as it did in May, 1973 and in Nov., 1974, Israel would deter the Arabs from attacking, Beigin said.
Earlier this week, Likud demanded a national referendum or elections before the government agreed to any further territorial concessions in Sinai. Likud leaders contended that the government lacked the legal and moral authority to agree to such concessions without the prior approval of the electorate.
Labor Party circles, however, flatly rejected the Likud demand. They said the Rabin government was pledged to go to the electorate before conceding any territory on the West Bank in future negotiations with Jordan. But that does not apply to a second stage agreement with Egypt if the government is satisfied that Cairo is offering quid pro quo for territory, the Laborites said.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
