Israelis Must Yield Territory, Shultz Asserts

Secretary of State George P. Shultz, rejecting arguments that Israel already has yielded enough of the territory it captured in 1967, said Thursday that a Middle East peace settlement is impossible unless there is a substantial Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and possibly the Golan Heights.

Talking to a House Appropriations subcommittee only four days before Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir arrives in the United States for high-level talks, Shultz refused to accept Shamir’s argument that those territories are in a different legal category than the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel began to return to Egypt almost a decade ago.

Call for Withdrawal

Shultz said that the peace initiative he presented to Israel and to Arab nations last week “is based on (U.N. Security Council) Resolutions 242 and 338 in all of their parts.” The resolutions, adopted after the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973, call for Israel to withdraw from occupied territory in exchange for “peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force.” Under the traditional American interpretation, the resolutions call for Israel to surrender most--but not all--of that territory.

Shamir maintains that Israel already has complied with the resolutions because it yielded the Sinai. In terms of geographic area, at least, the Sinai constituted the bulk of the land that Israel captured in 1967.

“The fact that 242 and 338 have been applied to the Sinai doesn’t lessen the applicability of it to other negotiations,” Shultz said. He said that the resolutions apply “to negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza or, for that matter, to the Golan Heights.”

Before the 1967 war, Jordan controlled the West Bank, Egypt held the Gaza Strip and Syria held the Golan Heights. Under the U.S. peace plan, the Golan, which Israel formally annexed in 1982, would become a subject for negotiations if Syria enters the talks.

Shultz presented his plan to the leaders of Israel, Jordan, Syria and Egypt last Thursday and Friday. He asked for a response within 10 days, but so far there have been no replies.

Hostility Not Hidden

Shamir has made no secret of his objections to substantial parts of the Shultz plan. He expects to discuss the proposal during his U.S. visit, which begins Monday, but he will be unable to accept or reject it formally because the Israeli Cabinet, which sets government policy, has not yet taken a position.

In an interview with French television, President Reagan was asked if he plans to pressure Shamir to accept the U.S. plan.

“I don’t think it’s so much pressure as it is just an attempt at persuasion,” Reagan replied.

“I believe that we have presented for discussion a pretty good solution that would remove some of the problems besetting the people in the occupied territories,” the President said.

Shamir has made it clear that he will resist any settlement requiring Israel to give up control of the West Bank, which contains many Jewish religious shrines, or the Golan Heights. He has been less firm in his stated determination to retain the Gaza Strip, the densely populated coastal enclave where a Palestinian uprising began 12 weeks ago before spreading into the West Bank.

Needed for Security

Shamir and his rightist Likud Bloc maintain that Israel must retain most of the occupied territories for reasons of national security. They note that much of Israel--including the major cities of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa--were within range of Arab artillery before the 1967 war. They say that Israel will never give up the “strategic depth” provided by Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

But Shultz maintained that the security argument is outmoded.

He said that missiles with ranges of hundreds of miles, the same sort of rockets that Iraq and Iran have used to attack each other’s cities, are now readily available on the international arms market. With such missiles, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa are already within range of Arab gunners.

“Security will always have to reflect durable boundaries, but when somebody who is a long way away from you can inflict very dangerous blows, then you have to look at it differently,” Shultz said.

Senators’ Letter Rejected

Meanwhile, Shamir angrily rejected the criticism of his position in a letter written by 30 U.S. senators, including Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.). The lawmakers, most of them staunch backers of Israel, praised the Shultz initiative and chided Shamir for failing to embrace the land-for-peace concept. The letter said that peace negotiations would have little chance for success if Israel “rules out territorial compromise.”

In his response letter, Shamir said that his government is ready to negotiate the future of the West Bank and Gaza “in the context of the implementation of the Camp David Accords.” He asked, “Are we expected to wipe away the Camp David Accords, for which we paid such a high price?

“Israel has accepted this resolution (242) and implemented it” by returning the Sinai, Shamir wrote.

“The Sinai was uncontested Egyptian territory, and therefore it was returned to Egyptian sovereignty,” he said. But he added that the West Bank and Gaza “were occupied militarily and illegally by Jordan and Egypt” during Israel’s War of Independence in 1948.