Israel and the olive branch
Sir: In President Sadat's interview with Newsweek he made it quite clear that he wants an Israeli withdrawal behind El Arish, and says nothing about direct negotia- tions. In other words, President Sadat is demanding that Israel give up the overwhelming bulk of Sinai before negotiations, thus destroy- ing Israel's strategic position and putting the clock back to 1957, when Israel withdrew from Sinai after Suez, which did not lead to peace, but led to war ten years later. However, in your leader, 'Israel and the olive branch' (27 February), you state that Egypt is prepared 'to undertake direct negotiations directed at a peace settlement before any substantial withdrawal from the Egyptian ter- ritories now occupied by Israel'. This clearly does not square with the facts, especially when one considers that Egyptian 'recog- nition' (again based on the News- week interview) says that recog- nition would be the same as that between the United States and China, in other words the Egyp- tians do not want good neighbourly relations. Israeli withdrawal did not work in 1957; why should it work now? Unfortunately there is one very good reason why it should not work under the present circumstances, namely the policy of the Soviet Union.
Russia after a short lull would start promoting tension in the area once again, in order to keep Egypt dependent on her so as to maintain the Soviet presence in the region. Therefore if Israel is forced to withdraw prematurely the conflict will definitely continue. If on the other hand Israel hangs on until the Egyptians agree to negotiate a real peace with normal neighbourly relations, then Israel will not only be able to give up more territory, as she will not need the land for security reasons, but the Arabs will no longer need the Russians, and will be able to ask them to leave the Middle East.
Alan Fox 29 Grangeway Gardens, Redbridge, Essex
Previous page
