The Press SATURDAY, JANUARY 2, 1971. Middle East talks

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32494, 2 January 1971, Page 14

The Press SATURDAY, JANUARY 2, 1971. Middle East talks

Notwithstanding some bellicose statements from either side, Egypt and Israel appear to be preparing to renew this week the Middle East peace talks under the auspices of the United Nations special envoy (Dr Jarring); both have given a clearer indication of their negotiating positions than they were prepared to do in the brief sessions before the talks were broken off in September; both have new guarantees of economic and military assistance from their backers among the great Powers; both have implied that they will attempt to resist any pressure from those Powers in the negotiations. These are encouraging signs after four months in which each side has accused the other of breaking the cease-fire, and in which the death of President Nasser and heavy fighting inside Jordan brought even greater uncertainty to the region. But it is still far from certain that Egypt and Israel have moved close enough together to be able to talk usefully. “ Readiness for war ” is still the theme of official statements in Cairo.

Egypt’s new President (Mr Sadat) has made it clear that Egypt wants the return of “ every inch ” of the territory lost to Israel in 1967; only then will Egypt recognise the right of Israel to exist and go on to discuss other matters, including navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba and the Suez Canal. Israel’s position is almost exactly the reverse: no concessions will be made before there is a binding peace: only then will Israel agree to withdraw its forces within “secure “ and agreed boundaries ”, which would presumably have to include some territory captured in T 967 and which Israel regards as essential to its security, not least the Gaza Strip and Sharm El Sheikh at the tip of the Sinai Peninsula. It looks like an impasse before the talks even begin.

The Israeli Government would do well to consider offering concessions in response to the slightly more conciliatory tone adopted by the new Egyptian rulers. A separate peace may not be impossible, in spite of talk of “Arab solidarity”; agreement with Egypt would remove the serious military threat to Israel and might encourage Jordan, and even Syria, to join in a settlement rather than risk being left to face Israel alone. King Hussein, at least, would favour such a course, although the status of the old city of Jerusalem, which has been incorporated into Israel, remains at issue. Syria, handicapped by political instability, is in no position to insist on the return of the Golan Heights. A lasting settlement, however, will require the co-operation of all the Arab States, as well as Israel, to solve the plight of the Palestinian refugees.

In the short run Egypt, which has serious economic problems, might welcome a separate agreement with Israel which guaranteed a respite from the threat of violence. But both sides are suspicious that the other has agreed to the talks for propaganda purposes and to give time for further military preparations. Both are under pressure from their “hawks”, who would prefer a resumption of the fighting if no substantial progress has been made in the talks when the cease-fire expires early in February. In spite of this, the prospect of progress towards peace is better now than it has been for some time. It is hard to doubt the sincerity of Egypt or Israel in their search for a lasting settlement; it is equally hard to see how this can be achieved when the areas of disagreement and distrust remain, with justification, so vast.