U.S. Reported Pleased with Proposals Given by Israel to Jarring During His Visit

The United States has expressed great satisfaction to Israel with the set of proposals handed to Ambassador Gunnar V. Jarring when the United Nations mediator was in Jerusalem over the week-end, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency learned from highly reliable sources today. According to the sources, the U.S. called the proposals which Dr. Jarring was to transmit to the Arab states “a great step forward.” The JTA reported on Monday that one of the proposals was a readiness by Israel to discuss territorial borders at an early stage in the Jarring talks if the Arab governments declare their readiness to conclude a permanent peace pact. Israel also reportedly proposed discussions with the Arabs on the nature of the peace to be concluded, the principles of secure borders, without their actually being drawn yet, demilitarized zones, the Arab refugees, freedom of navigation and prisoner exchanges. The JTA report was confirmed by other news sources today. A copy of the proposals submitted to Dr. Jarring was sent to Washington and elicited the highly favorable response from the Nixon administration, the sources said. The JTA learned that they were drafted by two senior officials of the Foreign Ministry, Mordecai Gazit and Moshe Sasson and were reviewed by Premier Golda Meir, Foreign Minister Abba Eban and officials of the Prime Minister’s office and the Foreign Ministry before they were given to Dr. Jarring. The Ambassador described his talks in Jerusalem as “useful and valuable for the future.”

Reliable sources here said today that Israel will insist in any peace agreement that the Arab states dissociate themselves from the Palestine guerrilla organizations if they continue to oppose a peaceful Middle East settlement. Fighting between Jordanian government forces and Palestinian guerrillas which broke out anew last Sunday continued today. Israeli officials said yesterday that Dr. Jarring’s visit to Jerusalem appears to have forced the Arab states to change their tactics which up to then had been aimed at getting the UN Security Council to force Israel into compliance with its Resolution 242 of Nov. 22, 1967 as interpreted by the Arabs and their Russian backers. This would have meant UN pressure on Israel to agree to withdrawal from the occupied territories prior to a peace treaty. The Arabs were relying on Big Power backing and therefore switched their emphasis from threats of renewed warfare when the current cease-fire expires on Feb. 5 to Security Council action, the officials said. But Israel’s proposals to Dr. Jarring would have to be disclosed at a Security Council meeting and the Arabs realized that they would be placed in a very bad light if they rejected them. In any case, the officials said, the Arabs understand that by accepting the Israeli proposals they stand a chance of getting back at least some of their lost territories.

President Anwar Sadat of Egypt said yesterday that his refusal to extend the cease-fire beyond its Feb. 5 deadline did not necessarily mean a renewal of fighting in the Suez Canal zone. He accused Israel and the United States of spreading false propaganda that an end to the cease-fire would automatically mean war. “I have not said that I shall declare war on Feb. 5,” he said at a public rally in the Nile delta town of Assiut. “but I have said that I shall not be bound to the cease-fire on Feb., 5 and shall not renew the cease-fire. This is completely different from the declaration of war claimed by the pro-Israel press.” Sadat condemned the U.S. for allegedly trying to “blackmail” Egypt into making concessions because Israel has finally agreed to resume peace talks under Dr. Jarring’s auspices. In the American view, this was a concession by Israel, Sadat said. “This is strange adverse logic…which we do not accept, and reject with all our power.”