Israel was embroiled in new controversies with Egypt and the United States over the weekend following publication in the three countries of the Israeli-Egyptian draft peace treaty text and the release by Israel of Annex III to the treaty, which covers in detail how normal relations are to be established between Israel and Egypt.
The fresh dispute with Egypt arose over the omission from the Arabic text published in the semi-official Cairo newspaper AI Ahram Thursday of Article VI, which Israel calls the “heart” of the peace treaty. (See separate stories of Article VI and Annex III.)
The new differences with Washington stemmed from Secretary of State Cyrus Vance’s assertion, in a New York Times interview Friday, that the Israeli Cabinet’s acceptance of the draft treaty last week does not mean that negotiations are ended because no the key element of a timetable for implementing the autonomy scheme on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
That was the one element that the Cabinet refused to accept and Vance’s remarks gave rise to fear in Israeli circles that the U.S. intends to exert pressure on Israel for concessions on that issue.
Article VI of the treaty draft establishes that the Israeli-Egyptian treaty takes precedence over any past treaties or agreements that either country may have entered into with respect to the Middle East conflict. In essence, it would nullify anti-Israeli pacts signed by Egypt in past years.
THE HEART OF THE TREATY
Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan was quoted today as saying that “Article VI–which the Egyptians want left out–is the heart of the treaty and without it there is no point in signing the agreement.” He insisted that Israel will make no concessions on that article and repeated that as far as Israel is concerned, the treaty draft as approved by the Cabinet must remain as is and should be signed by the two parties immediately.
The Cabinet met for its regular weekly session today but the relatively brief–two-hour–meeting produced no decisions of far-reaching significance. Cabinet Secretary Arye Naor told reporters afterwards that the government has decided to wait for Egypt’s response to Israel’s acceptance of the draft treaty in its original form.
He reiterated Dayan’s view that there is no need for Israel’s negotiators to return to Washington at the present time. Dayan and Defense Minister Ezer Weizman head the Israeli negotiating team. Both returned to Jerusalem a week ago to participate in the Cabinet deliberations on the treaty draft.
VANCE DIFFERS WITH DAYAN
Vance took issue with Dayan’s statement last week that there was no need for further talks on the treaty and that Egypt should “take it or leave it.” He told The Times that in the American view, “the issue is not determined yet. It is still an open issue because the parties have not reached an agreement on it.”
The U.S. has proposed a “side letter” to the treaty which would call on Israel and Egypt “to negotiate in good faith and continuously with the objective of holding elections (for autonomous councils on the West Bank and Gaza Strip) not later than the end of 1979.” Vance said that in the U.S. view, it is necessary to set a target date “to prevent Egypt from pulling out of the negotiations.”
Israel is unequivocally opposed to a set date. Premier Menachem Begin, meeting Friday with six members of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on a fact-finding mission to Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, said a timetable for autonomy could not be drawn up now because it was uncertain who would vote and who would run for office.
He told the Committee members, which included Sen. Henry Jackson (D. Wash.) and Sen. Jacob Javits (R. NY), that Israel was prepared to start discussing those issues “very soon after signing the treaty–a matter of weeks,” but would not be bound by a timetable. He said Israel accepted the treaty, except for that element and in his opinion “there is no rational reason the treaty should not now be signed.” He said Israel had made the maximum possible concessions.
BACKGROUND OF PUBLICATIONS
The draft peace treaty, preamble and annexes represent more than a month of negotiations between Israeli, Egyptian and U.S. delegations. Publication of the Arabic version in AI Ahram took Israel and the U.S. by surprise Thursday and it was not clear what Egypt’s motive was. The State Department released the official English text, containing the preamble and all nine articles on Friday, and the Israeli government published the Hebrew text and Annex III yesterday.
According to reports here, Israel intended to publish the treaty before the abridged version appeared in Cairo. Begin is said to have proposed this at last Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting “so that the people in Israel will understand fully the significance of the Cabinet decision accepting the American draft.” Dayan suggested that publication be delayed pending consultation with the U.S.
The consultations took place last week and both Israel and the U.S. agreed that the draft should be made public. The U.S. was reportedly opposed to publication of Annex III at this time on grounds that it was beyond the agreed treaty draft. But Israel insisted that the Annex was an integral part of the treaty itself. Annex III is the crucial one. Annex I deals with military matters relating to Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai and Annex II contains maps related to the draft agreement. Israel declined to publish those for security reasons.
Apart from the latest controversies, the matter of timetable and linkage remains unresolved. Israel feels that it has made the maximum concessions on those issues because the Cabinet reversed its earlier objection to the American proposed language in the draft treaty preamble which refers to linkage in gen- eral terms. Begin’s meeting with the six Senators focused on Jerusalem and the Jewish settlements on the West Bank. The Premier said that at Camp David the Americans produced a draft stating that Jerusalem will not be divided again. However, at a later stage, apparently because of behind-the-scenes activity, the Americans deleted the paragraph. Begin said that while at Camp David he asked President Carter “what is the capital of Israel? Unfortunately I got no reply.”
At one instance the Americans presented a paper which stipulated that Jerusalem was occupied territory, Begin recalled. “I replied on the spot that we did not come to Camp David to give up Jerusalem,” he said. Turning around to U.S. Ambassador Samuel Lewis, who was present at the meeting with the Senators, Begin asked” “Why does not America recognize Jerusalem as our capital? I hereby declare that this city will never be divided again and will so remain forever.”
On the issue of Jewish settlements, Jackson expressed full support of the right of Israel to settle in that area. He cited a number of international agreements and precedents which upheld his contention. Begin, delighted, said, “I agree with you 100 percent.”
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.
