An Interview with Nasser

Time Inc. Editor in Chief Hedley Donovan and TIME Managing Editor Henry Anatole Grunwald recently interviewed Egypt's President Garnal Abdel Nasser on problems and policies in the Middle East. The meeting took place in Nasser's relatively modest stucco home in Cairo's Manshiet al Bakri district. As birds chirped in the garden, Nasser, tanned and looking fit, entered the room wearing a white sport shirt and brown slacks. He spoke readily in a soft voice and, when amused, broke into a boyish giggle and slapped his thigh. Typically, he was more restrained in private with foreign listeners than he is in public exhorting the Arab masses. In three important areas--demilitarization of Sinai, a non-aggression treaty with Israel and recognition of Israel --Nasser offered new thoughts and embellishments on old ones. Some of the questions, and Nasser's answers:

What are the prospects of a Mideast settlement?

It has been almost two years since the occupation of Sinai, and there is continuing occupation. We have agreed to a peaceful solution, implementing the 1967 Security Council resolution. Until now, Israel has not accepted it. She says she will not leave the occupied areas until we sit down with her to talk peace. But we refuse to sit. It is not called for in the Security Council resolution. If we sit now, we sit as defeated people, sitting only to capitulate. This we cannot do.

Are you satisfied with your military performance along the Suez Canal?

Yes. The Israelis want us to respect the cease-fire resolution, but they do not respect the other resolution about withdrawal. If a big part of your country is occupied by enemies, you can wait a reasonable time for withdrawal. But the people are asking us to liberate the Sinai. Our artillery begins the liberation effort, for it is our right and duty to liberate occupied territory.

If Israel is persuaded to withdraw from the occupied territories, how would you visualize the next step?

If Israel agrees on two main points, this will solve the problem. The points are land--withdrawal from all occupied territory--and people--the Palestinians must have the choice of returning to their homes.

Could there be some sort of international occupation of that territory, say by a U.N. force, while further negotiations take place?

No, we could not accept the international occupation of Sinai.

Not even as an interim step toward solution?

Israel wants to have Sinai demilitarized. We could agree to such a situation with the Security Council, with Dr. Gunnar Jarring--something like that--for a short period. But on the permanent demilitarization of Sinai, we refuse.

Can you conceive of any negotiated territorial adjustments in the Sinai?

It is beyond discussion. These boundaries have been here for hundreds of years.

What about in Jordan?

That is for the Jordanians to decide.

In Syria?

There is nothing in the Security Council resolution about border rectification. If we agree to rectification, we go beyond the resolution, and this we cannot do.

If a solution is somehow achieved, would you sign a nonaggression pact with Israel?

If there were a solution to all problems, this would be something to think about.

If all other matters are settled, would freedom of navigation in the Suez Canal be a problem?

The canal would be no problem.

Are you ready to accept the existence of Israel if there is a withdrawal and a permanent settlement?

I accept the reality of Israel, and so will my people, if there is a humanitarian solution. Call it Israel, or whatever they want to call it, and I will recognize it.

Would you agree to an internationalization of Jerusalem?

Jerusalem is a holy city for Moslems, Christians and Jews. No one should be deprived of his religious rights. In any internationalization, the Jews, with a well-organized and rich worldwide community, might take advantage of us. We are for complete withdrawal from Arab Jerusalem. Without that, there can be no peace. We were not planning for war in 1967, but we must plan for war now in case everything else fails.

There is a growing body of U.S. opinion that we are too much involved in several parts of the world. How would you feel if the U.S. were less interested in this area?

After World War II, I looked upon the U.S. as a great and just power, taking no sides. I was proud of the U.S., but I have had many disappointments since then. The U.S. has refused us arms. In the Middle East, the U.S. has supported reactionary elements against progressive elements, and Israel against the Arabs. Maybe the best solution for the U.S. is not to withdraw but just to be more evenhanded. We assure the U.S. that we don't want to be Communist or influenced by anybody. Besides, it is impossible for the U.S. not to be concerned with the Middle East. You have interests here, and you cannot isolate yourselves from these interests. The Middle East is of great importance to both the U.S. and Russia.

Would you rather have the Soviet Union or the U.S. here?

I would rather have neither one, but it is not my decision. The Soviet Union has been a good friend to us for many years.

How about China?

China is not directly involved here. We have had a misunderstanding with the Chinese. They say I try to cuddle up too much to the Soviets.

What is the state of civilian and military morale?

We are against a big increase in morale because it might bring pressure from the people for military action that could be unwise. My tone of peaceful solution is not very popular in this country, and it poses a dilemma for us. I have told the people we do not want adventures, that we should not move against our will or out of frustration over 1967. This does not make me popular. One of my own children left home to join the armed forces after the war.

It was said after the 1967 war that you were getting misleading information from your military. Are you confident you are getting correct information about your capabilities now?

I was not handling military matters before the 1967 war. Now I am handling them directly. I am confident that I am not being misled.

If another war comes, and if you should win, what would your terms be to Israel?

That is like selling the fur of the bear before killing it. It is difficult to say. If I get any ideas about it, I will write you.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.