LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Israel and the olive branch
Sir: I was appalled by the lack of balance in your leading article 'Israel and the Olive Branch' (27 February). It betrays a shocking ignorance of the essential elements of the Arab-Israel conflict.
You expect Prime Minister Moir to go into paroxysms of joy because President Sadat has indicated in a Newsweek interview that he is prepared to recognise the existence of Israel. You neglected to mention that in the same interview he reaffirmed his categorical rejection of normal diplomatic relations between the two countries. The parallel he himself drew was 'America's recog- nition of China's territorial in- tegrity'. Is this the 'olive branch' that Israel is supposed to take hold of without hesitation and without demur? Have you stopped for one moment to analyse just what Israel is being offered in exchange for the territorial security it obtained in the 1967 war?
Under President Sadat's pro- posals Israel would withdraw to a line behind El Arish; that is to say almost to the pre-June 1967 border. The effect would be to place Egyptian - Russian artillery and missiles along with Palestinian fedayeen some 100 miles closer to Israel's large centres of population. (One would have to be extremely naive to think that Israel would be prepared to accept any Egyp- tian or Russian assurances as to missiles after what happened following the last ceasefire.) Even Israel's right to use a reopened Suez Canal is made con- tingent by President Sadat on a 'solution to the Palestine problem'. Stripped of diplomatic jargon this means that everything is to be restored to the status quo ante June 1967. For the Arabs have always used the `Palestine 'prob- lem' as an excuse for not carrying out their commitments under the UN Charter to live in peace with Israel.
Of course 'Israel needs a just and lasting settlement far more than she needs this or that piece of occupied land': as you rightly point out. The question is. will she get such a settlement? From bitter experience Israel has learned that she cannot take Arab promises at their face value.
For that matter, a fat lot of good it did the Yemen that she enjoyed normal relations with Egypt. Nor after what happened in 1967 can Israel be expected to rely on international 'guarantees'. In the final analysis Israel's existence depends on her ability to defend herself. The overwhelming majority of Israelis know and appreciate this. Your attempt to differentiate between civilians and the 'military chiefs' is simply not on. Israel's army is a people's army. That is the secret of its outstanding success.
In conclusion, your slur on Israel's treatment of the Arabs is unworthy of you. It is still by far the most 'invisible occupation' in history, and it is an occupation that will come to an end only when the Arab leaders drop their diplomatic double-talk and really decide to make peace with Israel.
Jacob Gewirtz 25 Furnival Street, London nc.,4
Previous page
