The Foreign Ministry has issued a series of “guidelines” to Israeli diplomatic missions abroad intended to clarify the government’s position on Security Council Resolution 242 in light of the Cabinet’s statement Sunday. Observers studying the guidelines, however, saw built-in contradictions.
Remarks by Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan before senior Ministry officials Monday did not resolve them and only raised speculation as to whether or not Dayan was advocating some softening of Israel’s position in order to improve relations with the U.S.
Guideline I states that “Israel does not accept formulas which imply Israeli withdrawal from Judaea and Samaria (West Bank) or minor border alterations. Israel suggests instead, its plan for administrative autonomy of the administered Arab territories.” But Guideline 3 says: “Israel emphasizes its consent that Resolution 242 will serve
ESSENCE OF GUIDELINE
The essence of that guideline is that Israel specifically includes Jordan as a partner in the implementation of
Thus, according to observers, Israel’s guidelines interpret the first clause of Resolution 242 calling for withdrawal from Arab territories in a narrow sense–withdrawal of armed forces but not an end to the Israeli presence in the territories. Dayan himself insisted that the resolution spoke only of “armed forces” and did not
The contradiction resides in Israel’s insistence (Guideline 4) that its autonomy plan is consonant with Resolution 242. That plan calls for continued Israeli presence in the territories including a military presence that “may be stationed in positions necessary to guarantee the security of Israel.”
Begin’s insistence that Resolution 242 does not apply to withdrawals from any part of the West Bank has brought
Some circles interpreted this as an implication that Dayan thought a greater degree of flexibility on Israel’s part was necessary to achieve better coordination. But Dayan did not say so specifically. It is not known whether he believes the new guidelines demonstrate the necessary flexibility or if he thinks Israel should move further toward easing its positions.
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS HIGHLIGHTED
Israel states in its guidelines that it will not accept any additions or supplements to the original text or
Guideline 6 states that Resolution 242 “implies negotiations between Israel and the neighboring states that will lead to an agreement over secure and recognized borders. An attempt to base negotiations with Palestinian Arabs on 242 would legitimize a Palestinian state.”
An explanatory supplement says that Israel differs with Egypt mainly on two points: Egypt’s demand for a prior commitment to withdrawal and a solution of the Palestinian Arab problems. Dayan told his Ministry officials that the intention of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat is to create a rift between Israel and the U.S. and it was Israel’s duty to prevent him from succeeding. According to Dayan, Egypt and the U.S. presently constitute a common front against Israel. He said Israel proposed including Resolution 242, fully or simply by reference, in the proposed joint
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.
