Attached is a paper on Egyptian-Israeli military disengagement revised to
take into account the latest positions as we know them and to refine the
concept I put to you before your trip.2
I note that both Egyptians and Israelis are talking about reaching some
agreement on disengagement before the peace conference. If their talks
continue along this line, something more limited than the total move
outlined in the attached may be needed.
You will note that the suggestions in the attached really cover a
disengagement in two steps. The first deals with the troops along the canal;
the second involves a pullback from the canal toward the passes. The concept
is presented so that the second could be either the second stage of
disengagement or the first phase of a later withdrawal.
Attachment
ELEMENTS OF AN EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI DISENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT
Peace Conference, Phase I
The purpose of this paper is to develop a general concept for an
agreement on disengagement of Egyptian and Israeli troops during the
first phase of the Geneva peace conference.
Opening Positions
Neither side has taken a definitive position on what disengagement would
look like, but each made an initial proposal, which has been modified in
subsequent discussions. The initial proposals were:
Israeli Position
1. Egyptian forces would withdraw from the east bank of the Canal;
Israeli forces would withdraw from the west bank.
2. Both sides would then thin out their forces along the Canal.
3. Egypt would undertake to clear and reopen the Canal to international
shipping.
Egyptian Position
1. Israeli forces would withdraw to a line inside Sinai which in
principle would lie east of the passes.
2. A disengagement zone, as wide as possible, would be created between
Egyptian and Israeli forces in Sinai. UN
forces would be stationed in such a zone. Egyptian forces would remain
in their present positions east of the Canal.
3. When Israeli forces reach the disengagement zone and UN forces are stationed therein, the
operation of clearing the Canal would begin.
4. At the time the disengagement phase is set up, a peace conference
would be convened under UN auspices.
In subsequent conversations, the Egyptians have seemed willing to defer
discussion of disengagement to the first stage of the peace conference,
while in Israel Prime Minister Meir, Allon and
Dayan seem to have reached a
preliminary judgment that disengagement would best be discussed between
the military representatives before a peace conference.
[Page 951]
Wherever the discussion takes place, the prime difficulties at this stage
will be:
—The Israelis are asking the Egyptians to give up territory on the east
bank of the Canal which is the only tangible sign of Egypt’s military
successes early in the war. We can expect Egypt to reject this proposal,
with the possible exception of the Third Army.
—The Egyptian position will be unacceptable to the Israelis because it
moves too quickly on the issue of withdrawal. Some sort of negotiation
will presumably be necessary on the overall framework of an
Egyptian-Israeli relationship before the Israelis will pull forces back
from the Canal.
Despite these difficulties, there are some points of general agreement
that might provide the basis for progress. For example:
—The convening of a peace conference will in itself convey a measure of
the Arab recognition of Israel on which Israel has placed a high
premium.
—Both sides appear to be willing to consider the concept of disengagement
of forces.
—Both sides appear to agree that Egypt should begin work on clearing the
Canal at an early date.
A Possible Disengagement
In developing a disengagement step, it will be necessary to keep these
imperatives in mind:
—Israel, if it is to pull its forces back from the 1967 ceasefire lines,
will be looking for concrete evidence that Sadat is serious about making peace. Among the specifics
that Israel might consider as constituting such evidence are the lifting
of the blockade at Bab al-Mandab; willingness to disengage forces
without seeking military advantage; actual beginning of work on the
Canal; willingness to allow Israeli cargoes or ships through the Canal;
end of the boycott; exchange of people like journalists; readiness for a
diplomatic relationship.
—Sadat will need to portray
Israel’s pullback as a first phase of withdrawal toward the pre-1967
borders, will be looking for evidence that disengagement is not just an
Israeli stall, and will need to place the move in the context of the
restoration of full Egyptian sovereignty in the occupied territory.
—The US will need to portray this as a
move which does not significantly jeopardize Israel’s security, which
gains Israel a measure of Arab recognition, and which buys Israel time
for negotiating the elements of a final settlement.
One possible arrangement might be based on an
Israeli withdrawal to the passes in return for (1) promised Israeli use
of all the waterways, [Page 952]
including the Suez Canal, plus (2) the measure of recognition that the
Arabs would have accorded Israel by the act of negotiating directly and
being prepared to sign an agreement with Israel. The Israelis have
repeatedly said that freedom of shipping is a primary strategic concern
in the area and that its denial is a cause for war. Opening the Canal to
Israel—or at least to Israeli cargoes—would be a concrete manifestation
of the end of belligerency without necessarily requiring an Egyptian
declaration of the end of belligerency. Specifically:
1. An agreement would state that the steps outlined below had been agreed
between the parties as first steps in their efforts to achieve an end of
the state of belligerency and durable peace in which each would respect
the other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and right to live in
security. [The purpose of this article would be to put Israel and the
US in the best possible position to
argue that the Arabs are serious about making peace and have already
taken a significant step toward the full recognition of Israel by
signing an agreement and stating such intent.]
2. The Egyptian Third Army would withdraw to the west bank of the Canal;
Egyptian civil administrators would move into the area vacated by the
Third Army. Israeli forces would withdraw to positions on the east bank
which would be east of the area vacated by the Third Army. [A possible
variant of this would be to leave the Third Army in place but to require
a substantial thinning out of both the Second and Third Armies.]
3. Egyptian forces on the east bank north of Ismailiya would remain in
place. The number of Egyptian troops and equipment levels allowed on the
east bank during the disengagement phase would be the total with the
army in this northern sector. They would be subject to various resupply
restrictions that could be monitored by UN teams with Egyptian and Israeli participation. [The
purpose of this provision would be to put the Israelis and US in a position to say that the Egyptian
military presence east of the Canal was primarily of symbolic rather
than of military significance and that Israelis had the right to monitor
that presence. One additional proposal which the Israelis will probably
make is a general thinning out of Egyptian forces west of the Canal,
including a pullback of artillery, SAMs, and amphibious equipment.]
4. Once this first move was completed, the following simultaneous moves
would take place:
—Egypt would begin work on reopening the Canal, would acknowledge
Israel’s right to use the Canal in the context of a peace settlement
once it is open and would acknowledge Israel’s right of free passage
through all the waterways in the area, including the Bab al-Mandab and
the Strait of Tiran. Egypt would agree, at least pri[Page 953]vately, to allow Israeli cargoes through
the Canal as soon as it opened. Israeli ships would be allowed transit
rights when final agreement is reached.
—Israeli forces would move back to positions at the passes, retaining
control of the passes. Israel would state that this is not the final
border.
—Between Egyptian and Israeli forces a disengagement zone would be
created in which UNEF forces would be
stationed. Egyptian and Israeli liaison officers would serve with the
UNEF.
5. Both parties would declare their intention of continuing negotiations
beyond this disengagement of forces to achieve a durable peace and the
normalization of relations between them. They would state their
willingness to examine all proposals in a positive spirit in an effort
to reach an agreement at the earliest possible date.
At this point, the negotiations themselves could take up the terms of a
broader settlement and further withdrawal, which itself might be
staged.
