Israel Government in Controversy With. Press over Publication of Material Considered Detrimental

The Israeli government was embroiled in a bitter controversy with the Israeli press today over the publication of material it considers detrimental to the interests of the State. The long simmering conflict over the appearance in Israeli newspapers of material “leaked” by high-level sources erupted last night and this morning over two specific stories.

One was the banning by Israeli military censors of publication of a book by Matti Golan, diplomatic correspondent of Haaretz, which contains what are purportedly verbatim transcripts of private conversations between former Premier Golda Meir and Secretary of State Henry A, Kissinger during negotiations that led to the disengagement agreements between Israel and Egypt in January, 1974.

News that the book had been banned was withheld from publication until midnight last night when an army spokesman issued a brief statement revealing that fact. The statement said the Golan book was “full of secret and top secret material” which could prejudice the State. The official acknowledgement of the censorship was made only after the New York Times published the story today of the censorship and the alleged contents of the book in its editions this morning.

The other source of controversy was the publication in the Jerusalem Post yesterday of a list of 12 “Egyptian concessions” during the recent bilateral talks with Israel which Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger was circulating selectively in Washington according to the Post’s Washington correspondent, Wolf Blitzer.

There was no immediate official reaction to the Jerusalem Post story but highly placed sources here were reported to be both angered and saddened by the publication. Officials said at noon today that they were “studying” the reported list of concessions and would decide on a reaction later, Privately, the officials indicated that they had known for some weeks that a document of that nature had been circulated in Washington.

(In Washington, the State Department has refused to confirm the contents of the Jerusalem Post story or the existence of the documents. But officials there said it was broadly similar to background briefings given recently by Undersecretary of State Joseph J, Sisco. The State Department also had no reaction to the Golan book.) (See separate story for Kissinger’s reaction.)

CHALLENGE IN COURT EXPECTED

Haaretz said today that Golan was seeking legal advice with a view to challenging the ban on his book in the Supreme Court, Meanwhile, he has complied with an order to turn over his manuscript and all notes and documents relating to it to the military authorities on the understanding that they would be returned if the ban is revoked.

According to the New York Times’ Jerusalem correspondent, Terence Smith, the Golan book contains secret minutes of meetings between Mrs. Meir and Kissinger during which the latter made disparaging remarks about leaders of Egypt, Syria, the Soviet Union, Japan and other countries.

The decision to ban the book was reportedly taken after extensive deliberations at the Cabinet level and was finally reached by Premier Yitzhak Rabin. According to the Smith story in today’s Times, Rabin called a meeting of the editors of Israel’s major newspapers in his Tel Aviv office last Wednesday to explain why the Golan book was censored.

Rabin reportedly told them that the revelations it contained would cause a rupture between the U.S. and Israel and that the U.S. would thereafter refuse to assume any mediating role in the Middle East conflict because it could not be assured of the confidentiality of its private communications.

SPECULATION ABOUT SOURCE OF LEAK

Speculation was rife, meanwhile, as to the identity of the person or persons who made secret documents, protocols and internal communications available to Golan. Since the period involved was the final months of the Meir government, speculation has focussed on members of that government and, in particular on former. Foreign Minister Abba Eban who is embroiled in a bitter controversy with the Rabin government over his criticism of its policies during the bilateral talks with Egypt.

It was emphasized, however, that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that any high ranking member of the previous government was responsible for the leaks. Golan has steadfastly refused to name his sources.

AGREEMENTS, NOT CONCESSIONS

Meanwhile, informed sources here said that the 12 “concessions” allegedly offered by Egypt were not concessions but agreements or understandings already incorporated in the January, 1974 disengagement accords and their re-hashing at this time is something of a hoax.

One of the alleged “concessions” was Egypt’s readiness to “reduce” hostile propaganda and “selectively” ease the Arab boycott of some American firms trading with Israel. It was not clean whether these items were direct undertakings to Israel or secret understandings between Egypt and the U.S. Israel attaches significance only to agreements openly and directly made.

Other “concessions” listed included the willingness to permit Gaza students and families to cross the Sinai cease-fire lines–something they have been doing since 1967–and to allow Israeli cargoes through the Suez Canal.

The latter, according to Israel and the U.S., was part of the 1974 disengagement agreements. Another “concession,” to-allow free passage through the Straits of Bab el Mandeb which was blockaded by Egypt during the Yom Kippur War, was a secret part of the November, 1973 cease-fire agreement, the sources said. Similarly, an Egyptian undertaking to refrain from acts of force by military or paramilitary forces, was part of the 1974 disengagement agreement.

The list included a declaration that the Arab-Israeli conflict must be solved by peaceful means and that the new agreements would remain in force until superceded by another agreement. It also stated that the United Nations peace-keeping forces would continue to function and that its mandate would be extended annually. Egypt, meanwhile, has agreed to only a three-month extension, from the date of expiration, April 24, 1975.