Additional clarifications to the statement of 27 June, were provided by the State Department spokesman a day later. He said that the U.S. is not suggesting that there would be instant Israeli withdrawal or instant Arab recognition of Israel. These two developments would be part of the peacemaking process. He also said that there would have to be a peace treaty, but the United States cannot say what the timetable would be in the peace process. Excerpts follow:
Q. In the statement which you read, which was clearly a prepared statement, you spoke of steps toward normalization of relations. You did not speak in terms of normal relations per se - which is part, I suppose, of any legalistic peace agreement between the parties.
Can you now tell us - can we try again and ask you if there is been any change in the administration's view that Israel would not give up all these substantial territories for anything less than real peace - including exchange of ambassadors, trade, the movement of people, the common factors in what is called legalistic peace, juridical peace?
A. Yes. Yesterday's comment had to do with the desire not to go into a long repetition on a number of points of policy, but let me say there is not any change on this at all. The point on both cases is that we don't want to suggest that there would be either instant withdrawal or instant normalization of relations, that both of these processes would require time and negotiation. However, since what I said was pretty much a reiteration of Vice President Mondale's speech, I would like to go back to that and try to use it as a definition statement on the question you raise. I am quoting him:
"President Carter has gone further than any of his predecessors to stress with Arab leaders the essential point that peace must more than merely an end to hostilities, stating as he did in Clinton, Massachusetts, last March: "The first prerequisite of a lasting peace is the recognition of Israel by her neighbors - Israel's right to exist, Israel's right to exist permanently, Israel's right to exist in peace. That means that over a period of months or years that the borders between Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Jordan, Israel and Egypt must be opened to travel, to tourism, to cultural exchange, to trade, so that no matter who might be in those countries, the people themselves will form the mutual understanding, the comprehension, and a sense of common purpose to avoid the repetitious wars and deaths that affected that region so long. That is the first prerequisite of peace".
"We have found that the Arab leaders did not insist that this kind of peace is something only that future generations could consider. 'Some leaders, such as King Hussein during his visit to Washington, have made clear their commitment to a just and lasting peace, one which will enable all the people in the Middle East to devote their energies and resources to build and attain a better future".
This is our policy on the nature of peace in the area.
Q. So that, in sum, some parallel system or some symmetrical system - as Israel withdraws the Arabs take these steps. The ultimate objective is a real peace for all people?
A. The ultimate objective is to have real peace in the area. "True peace" I think was the phrase I used yesterday. And it is also, as we have said before, withdrawal, again without trying to say what the timetable is in either instance.
What I was trying to point out yesterday, of course, is that the reason that I was reluctant to go much further than where I was, is that basically how this proceeds and what form it reaches and how it reaches are basically matters for the parties to discuss and to decide upon and to reach themselves.
Q. Hodding, at what point in the process would there be a document that would be called a peace treaty?
A. Well, there would have to be a treaty of some sort. Now at what point I am hesitant just to say it - you know, where it comes in. It is to be there, though.
Q. Would it be there before the withdrawals and before the step toward normalization?
A. Again, I am just not prepared to go down the line and tell you where each step takes place. I am trying to tell you what we think has to be the result of the process.
Q. Has any Arab leader said publicly or privately that he is willing to sign a peace treaty with Israel?
A. In the Sinai Agreement of September 1975, the Egyptian and Israeli Government commit themselves to reach a final negotiated peace settlement. The exact text of the pertinent articles is:
"Article 1. The agreement concluded by the parties, January 18, 1974, within the framework of the Geneva Peace Conference, constituted a first step towards a just and durable peace according to the provisions of Security Council Resolution 338 of October 22, 1973.
They are determined to reach a final and just peace settlement by means of negotiations called for by Security Council Resolution 338. This agreement being a significant step towards that end.
Article 8. This agreement is regarded by the parties as a significant step toward a just and lasting peace. It is not a final peace agreement. The parties shall continue their efforts to negotiate a final peace agreement within the framework of the Geneva Peace Conference in accordance with Security Council Resolution 338."
In the Disengagement Agreement between Israel and Syria for the Golan Heights of May 31, 1974, the two Governments also agreed to the following:
"H. This agreement is not a peace agreement. It is a step toward a just and durable peace on the basis of Security Council Resolution 338, dated October 22, 1973."
In recent months, Egyptian President Sadat has stated several times his willingness to sign a peace agreement with Israel. For example, in a press conference with West German Foreign Minister Genscher on February 12, 1977, President Sadat said:
"We are prepared today or tomorrow to sign a peace treaty in Geneva to end the state of war and restore normal relations in the area. On the other hand, Israel must fulfil its commitment regarding Security Council Resolution 242. This means Israel's withdrawal from the Arab territories it occupied after 1967. We are prepared today and will be prepared tomorrow to sign a treaty no matter what guarantees Israel demands. "
Also in his speech on June 17, 1977, in San Francisco, Vice President Mondale pointed out that during his visit to Washington King Hussein of Jordan referred to a "just and lasting peace - one which would enable all the people in the Middle East to divert their energies and resources to build and attain a better future."