Sadat: New Overtures for the Peace

Less than a year ago, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was under severe attack from "rejectionist" Arabs for signing the second Sinai accord with Israel. Now that there is new talk about peace initiatives in the Middle East, the rejectionists have become isolated, and Sadat has emerged anew as a moderate Arab statesman with clout. At home, he feels secure enough to have authorized the formation of political parties. In an interview last week with TIME Correspondent Wilton Wynn, Sadat declared that he was ready to sign a formal document ending the state of belligerency with Israel.

After years of dealing with Republican Presidents, Sadat is already looking forward to a "face-to-face, man-toman" discussion with President-elect Carter. Even the departure of "my friend Henry" Kissinger does not faze him. "You are a nation of institutions," he explained. Besides, Sadat now considers Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy outmoded. He wants a full-scale conference in Geneva next year of all the "confrontation countries" and the Palestinians to deal with what he considers the central issue: Israel's return of occupied territory in exchange for Arab recognition. "For God's sake," he said, "don't get lost on side issues like the [Arab] boycott. Solve the big issue and you solve the boycott." Sadat has ended a feud with President Hafez Assad over Syria's intervention in Lebanon, but Egypt's relations with neighboring Libya are still hectic. "I consider Muammar Gaddafi my son," said Sadat, "but how can I believe anything he says when he never means anything he says?"

Other points made by Sadat in the wide-ranging 90-minute interview:

Q. What about the timetable for Middle East peace initiatives? A. I have heard that Carter has promised to take some action next spring, which is more or less the timetable I advised. But I do think the Middle East should be given priority. We have been delayed twice already--once by Watergate and again by the American elections. I think we have shown that we are patient, but this problem should not be unduly delayed.

My view is that in 1977 we should convene the Geneva Conference to decide the framework for an overall settlement. There is no need for any more "step by step." The Golan Heights is so small that it is not necessary to talk about further Israeli withdrawal before the final withdrawal. The second Sinai disengagement agreement defused the Israeli-Egyptian front.

Q. How do you feel about Kissinger's departure? A. The absence of one man will not do major harm. But I will say for Henry, he is the first Secretary of State with whom I dealt--and I've dealt with four--who changed the image of America for the better. He was not fond of the big stick like Dulles, weak like Rusk or naive like Rogers. He came here during a turning point, when the Arabs had won their first victory over Israel, and he proved to be a man of his word. Israel and the Arabs needed someone in whom both could have confidence. Henry was this man.

Q. What about your relations with Israel? A. I am in favor of signing a document formally, legally, publicly ending the state of belligerency between us. I would insist on complete Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territory and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. If the Israelis don't take my word that I will allow free shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba, I am willing to accept a U.N. force. Also, I am willing to accept a U.N. force along our frontier.

I have been told that [Israeli Premier Yitzhak] Rabin insists also on an immediate exchange of ambassadors, open borders and trade. I would say that after ending the state of belligerency, our relations with Israel would be like America's relations with China. You ended your Korean War and coexisted with China for a couple of decades, but during that time you had no relations. In time, circumstances brought you together. The same could happen here.

Q. Why must a Geneva Conference include the Palestinians? A. Without the Palestinians, there cannot be any peace. The problem is not Sinai or the Golan, it is the Palestinians. I know that under this pretext the Israelis will try to stay away from Geneva. You must bring the Israelis to reason. The big issue is peace, and peace is available. I predict that the Palestinians will eventually be invited to Geneva and will eventually accept. But it is important to offer them something that their moderate leaders can sell to their own people, like a West Bank-Gaza state.

Q. Why did you change your mind about Syria's role in Lebanon? A. I condemned the Syrian intervention when Syria was acting for its own ends. But when Syria put its forces under the umbrella of the Arab League, I approved. In the beginning, if Syria had intervened and imposed a cease-fire on both sides, I would have applauded, but they took one side against the other.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.