Israel Standing Fast on Its Interim Agreement Position

Israel is standing fast on its position with regard to an interim settlement in Sinai, considers the latest Egyptian counter-proposals unacceptable and expects the United States to press Egypt to soften its stand as negotiations continue between Jerusalem and Cairo via Washington. That picture emerged from today’s Cabinet meeting where the ministers were briefed on the latest developments by Israel’s negotiating team — Premier Yitzhak Rabin, Foreign Minister Yigal Allon and Defense Minister Shimon Peres.

Israel’s formal rejection of the Egyptian proposals was conveyed by Ambassador Simcha Dinitz at a meeting with Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger in Washington Friday. According to informed sources, the Americans who had ample opportunity to study both Israel’s proposals and map and the Egyptian counter-proposals and counter-map, were not surprised by the Is- raeli rejection and reportedly back the Israeli position. None of the parties apparently believe that an impasse has been reached. Political sources here are convinced that negotiations will continue and interpret the Egyptian response to Israel’s proposals and a bargaining posture which invites further talks.

LIMIT ON PRICE FOR ACCORD

Rabin said in a television interview over the weekend that although the Egyptian proposals were “substantially unacceptable,” negotiations were continuing. He said Israel still desired an interim accord but there was a limit to the price it was prepared to pay for one. He said the issue was not so much a matter of territories but an actual change of relations between Israel and Egypt. He said a genuine interim agreement could be based only on a public statement from Cairo renouncing the use of force or the support of its use by others.

With regard to territorial withdrawals, Rabin said Israel was not making far-reaching concessions in exchange for nothing. The negotiations, he said, involved an area of 48-50 kilometers east of the Suez Canal and about 270 kilometers west of Israel’s pre-June, 1967 borders. In short, he said, the new lines envisioned by Israel would still be closer to the heart of Egypt than to Israel.

SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE OF UNITY IN CABINET

There is also a substantial degree of unity within the Cabinet and support for the negotiating team’s efforts. Yesterday, Health Minister Victor Shemtov of the Mapam faction of the Labor Alignment told party members that the government’s latest proposals for an interim settlement were both generous and balanced. “If Egypt wants an agreement it should accept these offers,” he said.

Shemtov stated that Israel did not want prolonged negotiations, “however, we will not submit to an Egyptian dictated timetable drawn up to meet Egyptian dates.” Israel is not prepared to bow to pressure that would hasten the process and prevent thorough clarification of the problems that still remain, Shemtov said.

Peres declared last night that Israel had no intention of returning land to the Arabs unless there is peace in return. “The Arabs say we took territory from them. This is true. But the Arabs took peace from us and this is far more severe.” He also affirmed that Israel would not negotiate with the Arabs only as an equal. “If they will give, they will receive.” he said. “But if they refuse they will not receive. The negotiations will be on an absolutely mutual basis.”

DIFFERENCES SUBSTANTIAL, BUT RESOLVABLE

According to informed sources the differences between the Israeli and Egyptian proposals, while substantial, are not beyond resolution. Egypt is said to have demanded that the new Israeli line be located further east of the Mitle and Gidi passes than Israel proposed.

According to Israel’s proposal, Egypt would advance to the so-called “Blue Line” which presently marks the boundary between the Israeli zone and the buffer zone patrolled by the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). The limited forces provisions of the present disengagement agreement would apply to the entire area from the “Blue Line” to the Suez Canal.

The new Egyptian line would be so close to Israel’s advance air base at Refidim that it would no longer be operational. The Egyptians, on their part, object to continuance of the Israeli-manned advanced warning post at Umm Hashiba. They also object to Israel’s reported proposal that American technicians establish an advance warning surveillance post in the Mitle and Gidi passes area which would provide intelligence to both sides.

The Egyptians oppose any new surveillance stations, whether named by Israelis or their own men. They demand a wider corridor to the Abu Rodeis oilfields which, in effect, would mean that Israel would have to withdraw much further from the shores of the Gulf of Suez than it considers safe to protect its own access to Sharm el-Sheikh.