This is a digitized variation of an write-up from The Times’s print archive, prior to the start of virtual publication in 1996. To maintain these short articles as they initially showed up, The Times does not change, modify or update them.

You are watching: You left black and came back white


Occasionally the digitization procedure introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to job-related to improve these archived versions.
CAIRO, Feb. 14—Following are excerpts front an inter view through President Gamal Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic conducted in English Friday evening by James Reston, a vice presi dent of The New York Times, in the presence of Mohammed Hassanein Heykal, chief edi tor of Al Ahram, at the Presi dent's residence here:

Q. Are there any modest actions that could be taken brief of a permanent cease fire to break the existing diplomatic deadlock in between you and Israel? For example, you are on the verge of a religious holiday. Would it be feasible to make a begin via a short-term cease‐fire in the time of religious holidays one both sides?

A. This would be two or 3 days? I'll tell you some thing: Tbelow was no cease fire after the Security Coun cil resolution. Tbelow was a cease‐fire from our side, yet no cease‐fire from the various other side.

I have proof of ghat: the cities of Suez and also Ismailia, We were not at that time in a case to Answer, but eincredibly day there was battle and shooting. Many type of civilians were eliminated. What happened yesterday in Cairo was not the initially time.

Q. Could you define your strong objections to direct negotiations via Israel. The United States doesn't recog nize China however negotiates with its human being in Warwitnessed. What's the difference in your situation?


A. Really I think tright here is a big distinction. I don't think you occupy a component of China, or China a component of the United States, yet Israel lived in 20 per cent of our territory, around 70 per cent of Jordani an territory, and also about 10 per cent of Syrian area. So if we sit at this table with Israel> not it will be table of of capitulation. This indicates we would certainly accept uncondi tional surrender.

On the other hand, tright here is nothing in the Security Council resolution around straight nego tiation. Tright here was something around the representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations holding talks in order to implement the res olution.

Views on Rhodes Formula

Q: So I gather that the Rhodes formula for talks through the Israelis is not ac ceptable to you?

Answer: You understand, for two years Jarring tried to learn something, around the principles and really hopes for the implementation pf resolu tion.

We proclaimed all our views around that, Jordan stated all her views about that, Israel refused. They said, We desire to sit via the Arabs and also talk and we are not ready to say anypoint around our plans.


On the contrary, they shelp in their statements from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense that they desire a greater, bigger Israel. They de cided to join Jerusalem. They talked about joining various other parts from Syria from Jor dan, and Egypt. So we look to the Israelis with suspicion and also more than that. We are sure they want expansion.

You understand, they are a coun attempt without borders. They shelp that they have actually no bor ders and we desire to negoti ate around our borders. What is the meaning of that? This means expansion. This implies that they desire to add territo ries of various other nations to their land. They talk around the following generation making the actual borders of Israel.

Q. When you involved pow er you came as a young rev olutionary through plans to modernize your nation and also you hope to proceed that revolution. Is this war an obstruction or is it a benefit to that revolution?

A. Really, it is not a bene fit. At the start, we con centrated all our resources on structure up our country and also tright here were no plans around bringing even more arms to the army. I got assurances from the American Govern ment and the British Govern ment that wei have to have se curity and also tbelow would be no aggression, by Israel versus us. I had the ability to convince the army around that. Batt sud denly in 1955, tbelow were aggressions versus Gaza. Many type of of our soldiers were killed. This was the start ning between the Israelis and also after the rdevelopment.

Of course, after the aggres sion came the require of having actually arms. You recognize the story. Britain refsupplied, America re foffered and then we acquired arms from the Soviet Union.

Q. Wbelow perform you think points went wrong? When you started your rdevelopment there was much sympathy for your missions, in the USA and the rest of the West, and also someexactly how this loitered dvery own right into misunder standing and worse. What's your check out about what was responsible for that?

A. I am informing you some thing: The intention of the Israelis from the beginning wregarding create misunderstand ing between Egypt and the USA. You know, in the start of 1955 we were in a very excellent relation. Then came this question of the assault by the Israelis and also we asked around arms. We were promised arms from the United States Government, however there were pressures versus the United States and we were unable to acquire arms either from the United King dom.


Then, of course, we were feeling that we were in a mess bereason the Israelis were strong and also we were needing arms. Then carne the people‐ in this country to begin fires in American prop erties, cinemas and also so on, until we arrested among them and he confessed he came from Israel in order to cre ate misknowledge between the United States and Egypt.

Then we were based on even more aggression from the Israelis and the army was asking for arms, and also I'll tell you that in a revolution by the army, the initially point peo ple think of is arms. We didn't acquire any kind of arms till 1955. Then we got in touch via the Soviet Union, and also you understand the rest of it. We got arms from the Soviet Union, so this was the begin ning of the misexpertise through the USA.

Q. In your check out was this misexpertise purposeful on the component of the United States? After all, you had actually long associations through Jeffer child Caffrey, Hank Byroade and other American Ambas sadors, including Luke Battle.

Did you gain the impression that the United States really does have actually imperialist ambi tions to control or dominate this part of the world‐through Israel?

A. You know, at the begin ning they tried to overcome this component of the human being straight ly. You understand, I was asked by the USA Ambassa dor simply not to attempt to say anypoint about the location however mind our very own affairs. One cannot isolate Egypt, I told him, from what is going on roughly right here, and also of course, this was the start of the Baghdad Pact. I shelp we would not agree around the Baghdad Pact.

So they tried to control us in the United States, in coop eration with Britain, and also they tried likewise to control the location.

This was clear in Mr. Eden's statement prior to Parli ament after the signature of the Baghdad Pact that we will certainly have a loud voice in this area, so the principle of control and also influence really was tbelow.


Statement on Oil

Q. In the communiqué you issued the various other day after the Arab summit meeting right here, tright here was an indication at the end that continued pres ence of the Amerihave the right to oil suppliers was an indirect means whereby the USA can continue financ ing this battle through Israel versus you. What was the definition of that?

A. Well, really, one would have to ask himself the ques tion: Israel was able to win the battle of '67. Israel was able to ruin all the Arab air forces, either the Syrian, the Jordanian or the Egyp tian. And Israel asserted that they lost just a few planes. So they were via air su premacy over the entirety area, and also it was asserted after the war that Israel had actually two or three pilots for each plane.

Then we tried to reconstruct our armed pressures by obtaining the same types of airplanes we were utilizing before, either MIG‐17's or 21's. It's famed that the MIG‐21 has actually a very brief variety and likewise the MIG‐17. So these MTG's are renowned as defensive weapons, not offensive.

Well, what occurred after that was the approval of the USA Government to give Israel 50 Phantom, air planes and around 100 Sky hawks. The Phantom plane deserve to carry around salso loads of bombs and it is it long range airplane which can reach any component of our country. One has to ask himself a question: Why did the USA agree to provide such tools to Israel, as soon as the Israelis were in a position of air su periority?

U. S. Motives Questioned

The answer is that these weapons were provided to be offered versus us in offensive action, against our army formations and against our commercial buildings, and also versus our civil population. What taken place in the Israeli raid outside Cairo yesterday is one of these examples. These tools are not to protect Israel versus aggres sion, but to offer Israel the power to force us to accept what the USA wants. What does the USA want?

Q. I think the United States desires peace in the area—I honestly perform. I agree tbelow is a distinction to be made be tween the Phantoms and also Sky hawks, with their greater rate and array and also moving power, and the MIG‐17's and 21's, but after all, you have been trying to obtain MIG‐23's from the Russians, and you have not been able to acquire them, have actually you?

A. I did not attempt to acquire the MIG‐2's till 2 months back. And the 23's aret not prefer the Phantoms because the Phantom is a fighter‐bomber and also the MIG‐23 is an inter ceptor, not a fighter‐bomber.


Q. What changes would you expect iii the Amerihave the right to aide mémoire on Egypt in order to make it even more negoti able—the one that proposes the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all lived in terri tory except for particular ne gotiated protection arrange ments?

A. Well, you recognize, you said that the USA desires only peace. I desire to comment on that. The United States does whe the Israelis say. The Israelis say they desire direct negotiations through the Arab says. That's what the USA has actually said.

The USA has actually shelp it desires to negotiate secure and known limits. That's what the Israelis said as well. The United States wants to check out negotiated agreements about the Gulf of Aqaba.

That's what the Israelis have said. So answering your ques tion, I don't think that the United States paper was the same with the Security Council resolution. We agreed to the Security Council reso lution. We thought it was a balanced resolution.

Withdrawal Mentioned

In the Security Council resolution somepoint was shelp about withdrawal. Then an other phrase about peace: Each country has actually the best to live, and also so on, all what is well known: The recognition of all the nations in the area. Then tright here was another thing about navigating, cost-free dom of navigating, and some point around the refugees. So it is balanced. But the Ameri can proposal is not balanced prefer that. We don't think this a great resolution, however that is what the Israelis desire.

Q. If that is true, why execute you think the Jewish organi zations in the USA were so upcollection around the American proposals and the Rogers speech? Why would certainly they have done that if the State Department was providing Israel whatever it wanted?

A. Well, you understand, be tween the Israelis there are some differences. Several of them want a particular piece of land, others desire a bigger piece of land also, some world want to include all the inhabited regions to Israel. And I think many of the Israelis and many of the Jews want to add all the lived in terri tories, that is to say, to have actually every one of old Palestine, part of Egypt, component of Syria.


That's really why tbelow were such distinctions. And don't think that would be the finish if they joined all these parts. Within the following 10 years they will have actually even more components bereason their plans are renowned.

Q. Is the army escala tion, especially these air strikes, developing emovements in Egypt which provides it more tough for you to make tranquility or less complicated for you to make: peace?

Almethods Favored Peace

A. Well, really the ques tion is not that. From the beginning I was always for peace, but what is peace? This is somepoint around which everybody has actually his very own opinion and interpretation. When I was reading your interwatch via Mrs. Meir, she was speaking many type of times about tranquility. She told you that we attacked Israel 3 times. Well, really, what is peace?

I desire not to answer this question. I desire to say somepoint. Why did this trouble go on for 20 years? Nobody asked this question. After the 1949 agreement, what happened? Mrs. Meir sassist that they were assaulted by the Arabs in 1948. She told you that tright here was a Jewish state and another Arab state and the Israelis were struck, and this is not true. Well, you can have the documents. Before the com plete evacuation of the Brit ish troops from, Palestine, the Jews attacked the Arab state—which was called the Arab state according to the partition setup — inhabited many cities, populated Jaffa. Then when Mrs. Meir says that the Arabs assaulted, I'm sorry to say that this is not true.

She told you that Israel was struck in '56. Tbelow was no comment from you, think it is clear to everybody that the aggression of '56 was not from our side. Tright here was a plot in between Britain, France, and also Israel. So in '56 Israel was not affiliated at all in the Suez Canal affair, however she agreed to be a cat's paw for Britain and France.

Well, in '67, the whole question is nearer. Why did this trouble proceed for 20 years? After the Rhodes agreement, there was a resolution from the Secu rity Council around the refu gees, to go back to their house land also, and to have compensa tion. And then there was agreement to have actually a concili ation committee, which was formed from the United State, France, and Turvital, to lug the Arabs and also the Is raelis together to agree about the borders. There was a meeting at Lausanne however then the Israelis left Lausanne and this was the first and also the last meeting of this committee.

No Equipment on Refugees

Then what came after that was that even more than one mil lion Arabs were thrust out of their homeland, deprived of their property, deprived of whatever. Israel refprovided to implement the resolution of the United Nations around the refugees. So the Arabs sassist that in order to have actually any kind of agreement tbelow need to be a just solution around the ref ugees, but tright here was no so lution.


Now I'll tell you something: They speak around peace however ignore completely the Pales tinians. If the trouble of the Palestinians, of the refugees, is not resolved, tright here will be no peace. This is the major question or tranquility. I realize that once Mrs. Meir was talking through you, she neg lected totally the Pales tinians. Wbelow were the Pal estinians from '48 till '67? Well the Palestipians were tright here.

If we want peace, well, tbelow will certainly be a clear and also simply basis for tranquility, and also this is the resolution of the Security Council, finish withdrawal from the occupied areas, including Jerusalem, then, a just solution for the refu gees, and also after that, tbelow will certainly be no problem.

Q. Let me return to the war instance. How a lot suf fering and also damage perform you think the human being will tolerate in this nation for the sake of this formula?

A. Really, it is not for the sake of the formula. It is for the sake of justice, for the sake of their civil liberties, it is for the sake of not being humili ated. You recognize, tbelow were many type of methods of humiliation in your intersee via Mrs. Meir. You recognize what she of fered Egypt defeat, Nasser is weak, why need to we heed him, and many kind of words like that.

Calmness Discussed

Our world here, really have their experiences: We have actually lived here for even more than 7,000 years: civilization‐old Egyptian human being. It has withstood many type of invaders. Now we are invading the new invaders, the Israelis. So it is our freedom, and also it is likewise our dignity.

I will tell you something. The endurance of this coun try, this world is exceptionally good, and also whatever difficulties they face, they firmly insist on. It is not a question of formulas.

Q. Some of my colleagues were commenting last night about how calmly the Egyp tian human being accepted the bombers on the edge of the city and were speculating about whether this came from the character of the people, from fatalism, reli gion, or what?


A. It is their background. When I soptimal of history, I don't speak about history publications. In every man tbelow is some thing from his father, grand father. This is really the characteristic of any country. It is a mix of many things.

I think, initially of all, they have actually confidence in them selves. You understand I checked out prayers this particular day via President Numeiry . Many times I go to prayers, however this particular day the people who were in the streets were around 10 times more than last time.

Also, tright here is a question of nationalism. You understand, nationalism to us is fundamental.

Q. Is there a climb in Egyptian nationalism? Mr. Heykal was arguing the other night that there was a rise in Egyptian as dis tinguiburned from Arab na tionalism after your very own nation came under assault.

A. Before '67 it was Arab nationalism. After '67 it was Egyptian and Arab national ism. You understand we were dis cussing the question of Is raeli evacuation of Sinai, without fixing the difficulty of Jerusalem and the western bank, nobody agreed around that. This remained in the Central Committee. He is a member of the Central Committee. He didn't agree about ghat. This is also Arab nationalism.

Q. Supposing then that this air battle spreads, and also goes to sectors and so on. Are you all set at that time to accept straight air sup port from the Soviet Union or flyers from various other coun tries?

A. Well, this is a delicate question. I have to think around that, however also I have to say something: If these air raids reach the commercial centers, this will certainly not only be the industrial centers of Egypt; it will additionally be the in dustrial centers of Israel. We are studying what hap pened yesterday and also we need to involved a decision.

Q. Do you accept the Is raeli official explanation that they made a technological error, do you think they wereaiming at some other place and also obtained towns con fused?


Israeli Explacountry Questioned

A. You know, I sent out my military secretary to the fac tory that was hit and also I have a report from him. Tbelow were no armed forces quarters close to this manufacturing facility, yet the timing of the rassist was liked simply at the transforming of the work shifts. The air raid took location 5 minutes before the arrival of the train that was bringing the new shift. About 2,000 employees were on their means to replace the old transition. So I think the object of the Is raelis wregarding give us a les child, to teach us, as it was sassist to you by Mrs. Meir.

Q. Have the redevelops of your economy and also society come cshed to fulfilling your expectations?

A. You understand we have actually a large problem: The rise of one million world each year. But we have actually done a lot in the time of the last 17 years. But after what happened in 1967, we are really concen trating all our efforts on defense.

Q. What are you doing around the birth‐control prob lem?

A. We have actually a birth‐control committee and we try by providing, not by lectures. We have infrastructure, however to me, education is the major point. You recognize, bereason who really conducts family setup ning: from what I view, it is the educated civilization. They really have actually family‐planning. Those who have high income, have family‐planning. Those who have actually low earnings don't have family‐planning. So what is the difference be tween both of them? The difference is education.

Q. As you understand, we now have actually a problem in the USA through dope, particu larly among the young. You have actually a lengthy experience through drug addiction in this part of the world. Do you have actually anything you want to say on this subject?

A. You know, the prob lem here was not via the youth. But we made a legislation after the radvancement to give life imprisonment for those who profession in hashish. As an outcome of that, I cannot say that tright here was no hashish, yet the price of hashish was extremely high and it was not pos sible for everyone to get hashish. I think now the per centage of individuals is decreas ing to an excellent degree. We are fighting the smugglers by having patrols all over the boundaries, in the aerodromes, and also the ports.

Q. You have remained in power longer than any type of various other head of government in a promi nent nation other than four: Mao Tse‐tung, Haile Selassie, Gen eralissimo Franco, and Chi ang Kai‐shek. All of them, in one means or one more, have had actually to limit their usage of power and also their missions in order to preserve or gain back peace and make it through. Yet in the Mid dle East, every little thing appears polarized, and also nobody appears to be limiting his missions.

A. I'll tell you somepoint. To some degree, I'm currently dif ferent from before the war of 1967. I have to be various. You understand, from the initially be ginning, we were planning every little thing around defense. You were here last on the fourth day of June. You left on Sunday . Heykal told me about the conversations that took place via you then.


No Plan for Attack

But tright here was no arrangement for assault versus Israel then. I want to tell you something: We were not capable of at tacking Israel already bereason a big part of our army remained in Yemen—around 3 divisions. We assumed constantly that the Israeli prob lem was really two problems.

The first one was the Pales tinian refugees and also their ideal in the homeland also. And this trouble requirements a solu tion. Tright here was an additional prob lem prior to us to which we were not offering excellent care. This was the difficulty of growth, and also additionally the political strategy of the Is raelis, which was set from the initially start to force a negotiation. To pressure a peace or to force a negotiation indicates war. It suggests you are going to wage battle, defeat your opponent and pressure him to accept your terms. Really, I can not bargain aget through the destiny of my coun attempt.

I'll tell you somepoint more. I could not accept giv ing Israel one inch of Arab region. I look at the ques tion as a really straightforward prob lem. If really everyone desires tranquility, we desire peace. But what is tranquility to us? Peace suggests the complete evacua tion of the inhabited area, including Jerusalem, and also after that the acknowledgment of Israel, the ideal of Israel to exist, the liberty of navi gation in the Suez Canal.

Then tbelow will certainly be peace. Tbelow will be no need of police forces, no require of demili tarized zones, bereason if we fix the refugee difficulty, and Israel agrees to boundaries without expansion, there will be a solution, this trouble went on 20 years bereason tright here was no solution of the refugee problem, and also if tright here will certainly be no solution, it will certainly proceed for another twenty years. I hope you understand also me.

Would Recognize Israel

I read all what was sassist by Mrs. Meir . I read it twice.

She desires me to sit in a chair, be polite and so on, but what is peace? If they evacu ate the occupied territories and also resolve the refugee prob lem, I will identify Israel. There will certainly be no difficulty. Why was tright here no recogni tion? Because there was the problem of the refugees. If the difficulty of the refugees proceeds, nobody will certainly recog nize Israel.

Q. This is interesting be cause among your colleagues shelp the trouble for Egypt is the Israeli state, we don't mind a Jewish homeland, but a Jewish state is intolerable.


A. You recognize, he is appropriate to some level. What I say, really, is that tbelow will certainly be a state which has Jews, Mos lems, Christians, bereason that were expelled out of Israel? The Christians and also the Mos lems. When the refugees re turn, it will be, really, not a fanatic state as it is now— because they are speaking around Judaism and also the state of Judaism. We don't sheight the state of Islam.

O. Has tbelow been any type of con tact between you and Presi dent Nixon in the time of this 30‐day period prior to his decision on the planes?

A—You know, we have actually no concepts of acquiring in contact. We had faith in the brand-new regimen and also we were told they would certainly be really even‐handed, but what taken place was that they were repeating the words of Abba Eban. The American aide mémoire— watch it and also see what Abba Eban said—the aide mémoire having phrases, finish phrases, from Eban. You recognize, the Rusk eight points of 1968 on the Center East were actually much better than the Rogers 10 points.

Q.—Would you go over 2 points, one the regulate by Israel of the totality technology nology of the. Pentagon? Were you implying in any way that this had been acquired by imappropriate means or that the U. S. Governguys thad actually offered them this technology?

Israel's Equipment Discussed

A.—The United States Gov ernment has offered them this technology. You recognize that just two countries have this technology, the USA and the Soviet Union, and also to some extent France. When they strike us, for instance, they have electronic jamming against our radar. Then our radar are white, be come white. Before they strike, they have actually electronic reconnaissance. This offers pinallude positions of the radar and also the rockets and so forth. We dubbed a Soviet team to study that and also to tell around a solution, and they‐ told us about some options, but they didn't be lieve it at the start, the Soviets, once we told them that the Israelis had so and also so.

Q.—You are telling me something that I didn't understand. I didn't understand that they had all that.

A.—Yes, they have actually all that. They have actually long‐array air planes. All their airplanes are long‐array. We have actually a couple of airplanes, bombers, that are long‐variety.

Q. Why execute you suppose that Johnchild offered the Israelis planes at the finish of his Ad ministration?”

A. It confused me really. Well, “I will tell you frankly. From the beginning, before the battle, Johnchild tried to con trol us He provided us‐ultima tums and also he sent out, I think, the Under Secretary of State and he said that they should can see the in dustry, to watch reactors and so forth.


And when we refused he shelp they would certainly give Israel arms and also so on and also that if we assaulted them around that with propaganda, then they would provide them more. “Sud denly we struck him and then they stopped their aid. Weùsed to have actually assist in wwarmth, about $60‐million. And we were at that time without any wheat reserves, just 10 days or so. So we turned to the Soviet Union and we told them that if they don't send us wwarm in 10 days we would face an extremely significant prob 1em;without breview. And they sent us their ships that were on their method from Canada and also Australia. That way we were able to solve this prob lem. We faced a very com plicated situation.

Then we acquired a tape record ing on the head of the C.I.A. here, speaking, around inten tions of the USA versus the routine, We ar rested him because he was dealing” via an Egyptian, a newspapermale. The United States was trying by all suggests to get rid of us. That is why it sustained Israel.

Coming earlier to the ques tion of cease‐fire, Abba Eban said that when he visited the United States they told him that if Israel were successful tbelow would be a Security Coun cil resolution around a cease fire however nothing around a withdrawal. If tbelow is some point about both a cease‐fire and also a withdrawal, we will accept it.

But we might not accept a cease‐fire alone bereason this is the objective of the Is raelis. They want to adjust all these occupied territo ries. They are building settle ments in Sinjury El Sheik and also in the Sinai. That is what they want. A cease fire to develop settlements for expansion.

Rectification Possible

Q. Your proposition, then, is acceptance of the Security Council resolution, both sides of it? Second, withdrawal from all territory?

A. There deserve to be some rec tifications. But once I say rectifications, I expect rectifi cations. What is the definition of rectification? As I under stand it, tbelow is a town, component of it in Jordan and component of it in Israel, they have the right to agree, this part will certainly go to Israel. In another village, a part will go to Jordan.

So the Jordanians provide some land also and also get some land. When there is a town in one location and also the land they use is another place, they have the right to agree around it. That's what I understand by recti fication. The Israelis, when they stop about rectifica tion, they intend that they have to occupy massive quantities of area.

See more: 7 Years This Elixir Of Ancient Knowledge Price S And Stats For

Q.: No, they are talking around something fairly dif ferent. Tbelow is no doubt around that.