Talks between the U.S. and Israel and the U.S. and Egypt, continued into the latter part of April and in early May it was announced that President Ford would meet with President Sadat in Salzburg on 1 June and with Prime Minister Rabin on 11 June in Washington. The expectations of these meetings are expressed by the President and the Secretary of State in the following excerpts:
President Ford.
Q: Mr. President, your forthcoming meetings with Egyptian President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Rabin - do they represent the beginning of a new American-led negotiation in the Middle East toward a 'peace settlement?
A: They do not represent a new negotiating process. I am meeting with President Sadat and Prime Minister Rabin for the purpose of getting from them any recommendations they might have as to how we can maintain the peace in the Middle East, how we can come to some final settlement that will be beneficial to all of the parties.
We are in the process of reassessing our Middle East policy, and they can make a very valuable contribution with their on-the-spot recommendations.
Q: Mr. President, do you now see any hopeful signs that there is any movement there off dead center?
A: I am always optimistic. I believe that the leaders of all of the countries, both Arab and Israel as well as others, recognize the seriousness of any new military engagement in the Middle East and the ramifications that might come from it.
So, I'm optimistic that as we try to move ahead, aimed at avoiding a stalemate, avoiding stagnation, that we can work with other countries in order to ensure the peace and a settlement that will be satisfactory to all parties.
Secretary Kissinger.
Q: Mr. Secretary, can we talk of the Middle East? President Ford and you are due to meet President Sadat in Austria next month and later with Prime Minister Rabin in Washirgton. What possible avenues for new negotiations do you see?
A: We do not have a plan that we want to present to these two governments now. But we do have the conviction that a prolonged stalemate in the Middle East involves a high risk of another Middle East war with major consequences for the possibilities of a conflict with the Soviet Union and with a major impact on the economies of all of the industrialized nations, including us. That is a danger that we are determined to avoid. We believe that it is also in the interest of all of the participants, all of the parties in the Middle East, including especially Israel.
So, we will talk to President Sadat and when we meet Prime Minister Rabin and other leaders about their ideas of how the Middle East can be moved to a solution. And after that we will formulate a precise American policy.
Q: It has been widely noted that you and the President criticized Israel for not being more flexible. What was the purpose of this private criticism?
A: There are so many myths that go around. The President made a public criticism, not a private criticism, when he referred to inflexibility. In terms of the long-term consequences, I have expressed the view that a strategy which on the whole had been agreed to with the Israeli government did not succeed.
The purpose has been not of criticism, but the purpose of making clear the general American perception of the problem was to make clear that new decisions had to be taken by all of the parties and that the progress towards peace in the Middle East cannot be stopped.
Q: But when you publicly or privately criticized Israel, didn't this release President Sadat from re-examining his policy?
A: We have asked all parties to look at their policies and the allegation of private criticism of Israel comes mostly from people who think they are helping Israel but who in my view are not helping Israel by making these, allegations.
Our view is that all parties on both sides have an obligation to explain what they can do to produce peace.
On the Israeli side this is a question of what territory they are prepared to give up.
On the Arab side it is a question of what concrete commitments to peace they are prepared to make.
Q: Almost six weeks ago, President Ford asked for a reassessment of our policy in the Middle East. I know you have not finished the reassessment. They say it will be done by the end of the week of next week perhaps. But I know you must have some idea. Can you tell us anything of what has emerged?
A: First of all, when President Ford announced this and set a tentative deadline it was before events in Indochina took a great deal of our attention...
But I believe that on the whole, the decisions, the final decision, will not be made until President Ford has had an opportunity to meet with the leaders of the countries principally concerned.
But the conclusion to which we have come is certainly to continue a major American effort to produce progress toward peace in the Middle East and not to permit a long period of stagnation...
Q: What assurances does Israel and our other allies have that we will keep our commitments to them since Israelis hear "reassessment" and other allies too, it seems to strike great fear that it could mean abandonment or great change, what assurances do they have?
A: The Presidqnt has, on several occasions, made clear, and so have I, that we will stand by our existing commitments.
Q: Could Congress change this?
A: Certainly Congress can change our commitments, as it. did in Vietnam, not our commitments, our implied obligations.
But the situation in Vietnam was quite different from the situation in other parts of the world. In Vietnam the situation was extremely controversial. It has not been that with respect to Israel or with respect to Western Europe and most of our other alliances. But Congress can certainly change any commitment we have.
Q: But do you feel that Israel and these other allies have good reason to be assured that the basic policy will not change?
A: Assurances are not achieved with words alone. It depends on our conduct as a people. In terms of the foreign policy of this administration, our allies and friends have no reason to fear that we will abandon them.
In terms of our overall performance as a country, it is crucial that we restore a sense of unity between the executive and legislative branches and that we perform in such a manner that other countries know that we are dealing with them as a united people.