Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume VIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, January 1977–August 1978

128. Memorandum of Conversation¹

New York, October 7, 1977, 11:40 a.m.

PARTICIPANTS

• Jordan:
• Hassan Al-Ibrahim, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs
• Hazem Nuseibeh, Permanent Representative to UN
• Abdallah Amin Salah, Ambassador to U.S.
• Khalil Salem, Ambassador to France
• United States:
• Secretary Vance
• Philip C. Habib, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
• Alfred L. Atherton, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs
• Arthur R. Day, Deputy Assistant Secretary, NEA

Hassan Ibrahim explained his request for the meeting by saying that many changes had occurred since the previous meeting,² and it was important to be clear about the current situation. The Secretary said he also had wanted a chance to talk. He then described the discussion we had had with the Israelis, primarily about two matters: Israeli views on the U.S.-Soviet joint statement, and Israeli reactions to our proposals on the convening of the Geneva Conference.

The Secretary said that Israel had expressed disagreement with some points in the U.S.-Soviet statement. We took note of the Israeli disagreement, but told the Israelis that the statement reflected our views. We said we regretted that they did not agree—some Arabs also disagreed with the statement—but it remained our view, nonetheless. We hoped they would come to agree in time, but meanwhile we made clear to them that they did not have to accept the statement as condition for participating in a Geneva Conference. Resolutions 242 and 338 remained the basis for Geneva.

Ibrahim said the Jordanian Government had studied the joint statement and supported it. The Secretary expressed appreciation. Ibrahim noted the statement contained a number of elements important for a settlement. The Secretary pointed out that the statement did not pretend to cover all the important elements. Ibrahim observed that there had been an attempt to amend Resolution 242, but that as a result of the U.S.-Soviet statement voices were now saying that there was no need for that. If we stressed the resolutions now, however, Ibrahim continued, there may be more pressure for amending them.

With respect to the working paper on Geneva procedure, the Secretary said there was nothing specific to give the Jordanians now in the way of a piece of paper. It had not yet been put to the Israeli Cabinet, he explained, and it would just be wasting the time of the Arab Governments to ask their agreement at this stage. He said he did want to give Ibrahim a summary of the contents, however.

Regarding Palestinian participation, the Secretary went on, the paper states that Israel supports a unified Arab delegation including Palestinians. It does not spell out how the Palestinian representation should be constituted, however. All of us will have to continue to work on that question. The paper provides that after the plenary session, the work of the conference will be done in working groups: Israel-Egypt, Israel-Syria, Israel-Jordan and Israel and Lebanon. Another working group would deal with the question of the West Bank and Gaza. This group would consist of Jordan, Egypt, Israel and Palestinians. The Palestinian question would be dealt with there. Still another working group would deal with refugees.

This is what we have been suggesting all along, the Secretary said—a combination of bilateral and functional working groups. The Secretary said he realized the Jordanians had some reservations about this, as did the Syrians. He said he hoped the Jordanian Government would reflect on this point. He felt that the arrangement called for in the working paper seemed a reasonable and effective way to deal with the problems involved. He said his own view was that the idea was acceptable to Egypt. We hope it will be acceptable to Israel. Once we had something definite to give to Jordan—probably next week—we would let them have it. He said he wanted to emphasize that these were only suggestions and were not cast in concrete.

Ibrahim asked if there was anything in the latest version concerning the working groups reporting to the plenary. The Secretary replied there was not. Nuseibeh then asked if the working paper was therefore the same as the one the U.S. had earlier suggested. The Secretary replied that there were changes. The reference to “not-well-known PLO members” was no longer in it. He explained that we thought it better to focus on precise names. Habib interjected that focussing on names was an alternative to considering the problem in terms of organizations.

Nuseibeh raised the question of invitations to the conference, asking how they would be addressed. The Secretary replied that this was not decided but that his own idea was that it could be handled as in 1973—with Co-Chairmen letters to the Secretary General, on the basis of which he would issue a call to the parties.

Ibrahim referred back to the question of the working groups reporting to the plenary, saying that this was an important provision in the earlier paper. The Secretary responded that, if the Jordanians felt this way, they should come back with that point in their comment.

The Secretary replied to a question from Ibrahim by saying that we thought the Palestinian question was best dealt with in the working group that he had described. Ibrahim then noted that the paper did not provide for the composition of the working group on refugees. The Secretary said that this should be determined by the parties. He himself thought that all parties would have an interest in the subject and should be members of the working group.

Nuseibeh asked if there was any substance to the report that the question of compensation to Israelis should be covered. The Secretary replied that it was dealt with in the working paper. Nuseibeh argued that most Arab countries make the point that the Jews can return, whereas Israel does not take the same position with respect to the Palestinian refugees. Furthermore, he said, the Palestinians have no connection with questions of any compensation that may be due Israelis from Iraq or other Arab countries. Habib noted that the working paper speaks of two categories of refugees—Palestinian Arab refugees and Jewish refugees.

Ibrahim asked whether he might hear about Arab reactions to the working paper. The Secretary said he hated to speak for others but could say in general terms that Egypt was quite positive, while Syria was much more reserved. Atherton reemphasized that we had not actually given the paper to the other Arabs. The Secretary said he regretted that we had to be so sketchy at this stage, but until it was sufficiently concrete this seemed best. The Jordanians now have the essence of the paper in any case. Habib commented that the paper as it now stands derived from the discussions in past weeks. The Secretary made the further point that we had not gotten precise responses from a number of countries to our earlier draft. We did get one from the Israelis, and that had led to the revisions. He said we hoped we could get prompt comments from the Jordanians when we gave them the paper.

The Secretary concluded by referring to his remarks at the lunch for the Arab League member states,³ where he said that we would all have to try to be flexible and to concentrate on the important things where there was no question of sacrificing principle. He said he thought with regret of the time that had been wasted in dealing with procedural questions in the Vietnam peace efforts. He thought we might have lost a chance for a peace treaty in 1969 because of disagreement on procedural matters.⁴ Thousands of lives had been lost as a result. Nuseibeh replied that he fully agreed on the need to focus on the key issues.

As the meeting was concluding, Ibrahim commented that there was not much time left to consider the date of a conference for this year. The Secretary commented that he thought we would have to be thinking of a convening in December.

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Middle East File, Trips/Visits File, Box 107, 9/19/77–10/25/77 Vance Meetings with Middle East Foreign Ministers: 9–10/77. Secret; Nodis. Drafted by Day on October 12. The meeting took place in the Secretary’s suite at the UN Plaza Hotel.
2. See Document 121.
3. Vance hosted the annual luncheon for the Arab League member states on October 6. A summary of the luncheon is in telegram Secto 10055, October 7. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770365–0829)
4. Vance served as a delegate on the U.S. negotiating team at the Paris Peace Talks with North Vietnam.