Vance Urging Egypt and Israel to Agree to the U.S. Compromise on the Two Key Disputed Issues

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance is urging Egypt and Israel to agree to the American compromise wording on the two key disputed issues of “linkage” and “priority of obligations” still holding up the conclusion of a peace treaty between them. The Secretary is understood to have come on his current mission to the region with U.S. proposed texts of explanatory letters that would accompany the treaty text itself, dealing with each of these points. (In Washington, President Carter reiterated today that Dec. 17 is the “deadline” for Egypt and Israel to conclude a peace treaty. See P. 3.)

The U.S. formula on linkage is based on its earlier suggestion that the parties agree to negotiate in good faith to hold the Palestinian autonomy elections by Dec. 31, 1979. They would also agree that if a “third party” (the implied reference is to the Palestinians) made the elections objectively impossible, the Israel-Egypt peace process would continue unaffected.

On the “priority of obligations” issue, Vance is believed to be urging President Anwar Sadat to drop his demand for changes in the previously-agreed wording of Article VI of the draft peace treaty. Instead, there would be an explanatory letter reiterating Egypt’s inter-Arab defense commitments.

Vance flew back to Cairo today after attending Golda Meir’s funeral. He is due back here tomorrow for two sessions of talks with Premier Menachem Begin and Israel’s negotiators, Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan and Defense Minister Ezer Weizman. Israeli sources said Vance did not report any of the substance of his Sunday conversations with Sadat to Israeli leaders during his visit here to attend the funeral.

But the general impression, backed by reports from Washington, seems to be that the U.S. still hopes to be able to conclude the talks — or at least move towards resolving the two key difficulties, by next Sunday, Dec. 17.

NOT HAPPY WITH AMERICAN IDEAS

Neither Israel nor Egypt is entirely happy with the American ideas regarding the “linkage timetable.” The Israelis ask who is to determine whether the “third party” has indeed made it “objectively” impossible to implement the autonomy elections. They fear that the U.S. would side with Egypt in the upcoming negotiations on the autonomy “modalities” to press for an autonomous authority with powers akin to those of a full-fledged state.

Egypt, for its part, is not reconciled to the “good faith” language in the U.S. proposal. It seeks rather a definitive formula saying “elections will be held by” a certain date. There are signs, however, that Egypt would be prepared to back down from its demand for changes in Article VI in return for Israeli softening on the “linkage timetable” issue.

Some policymakers in Cairo see the two issues as connected. They argue that if the Palestinian problem were satisfactorily resolved, the prospect of a war between Israel and other Arab states would become virtually nil and hence Egypt’s defense commitments to the Arab League countries would not involve action against Israel.