In all probability it is now only a matter of time before Egypt signs what will in effect be a separate peace treaty with Israel. The draft treaty, which has just been negotiated between the two governments in Washington under U.S. auspices, doubtless contains a provision which, according to the American spokesman, establishes a link between its signing and a possible Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank in future. But this cannot possibly go beyond the Camp David agreement whereby Tel Aviv is obliged only to set up an “autonomous” authority on the West Bank and open negotiations with Egypt and Jordan regarding its future. In other words, the provision in the draft treaty cannot amount to much. Going by the U.S. spokesman’s statement which is far more informative than those by the Israelis and the Egyptians, it is also true that the proposed annexure to the draft treaty have not yet been finalised. As such, in theory it is possible that President Sadat has suddenly chosen to make a reference to Jerusalem – the issue regarding its future does not figure at all in the Camp David accord – because he wants to bring it into the proposed annexures. But on the face of it that is highly unlikely. On the contrary, the chances are that the annexures will be finalised in the next round of talks in Washington within the framework of the Camp David agreement, that is, without a direct reference to the future of the Arab part of Jerusalem. President Sadat has gone too far to be able to change course, and indeed, to wish to do so.
The arguments for and against President Sadat’s policy have been heard again and again ever since he undertook the trip to Jerusalem last November and it is pointless to rehearse them once again. Here it would be more pertinent to point out that the “rejection” or “stand firm” states have not been able to establish an effective front against him and produce a programme of action which has a chance of compelling the Israelis to accept at least in principle the obligation to vacate more or less all the Arab territories they had seized in 1967. And though Saudi Arabia, too, has agreed to attend an Arab summit in Baghdad – it has been postponed for the time being on account of the non-availability of President Boumedienne for whatever reason – it appears highly unlikely that it will end its financial assistance to Egypt which has largely kept the latter country’s economy going. And inside Egypt itself, the opposition to President Sadat’s action in opting for a separate peace with Israel has turned out to be easily manageable, though it must also be said that his attempt to whip up support for it has not been particularly fruitful. Thus he is in a reasonably strong position to go ahead with his plans to conclude a peace treaty with Israel and implement it. So at least it appears at the moment.