245. Transcript of Telephone Conversation Between Secretary of State Kissinger and the Israeli Ambassador (Dinitz)1
D: Dr. Kissinger. I just got a reply from the Foreign Minister. With regard to the first paragraph we have no difficulty. With regard to the third paragraph, that of the U.N. observers, we are prepared that they should appoint a liaison officer and we discuss the thing on the spot we have no objection. With regard to the second paragraph the return to the original place. The Prime Minister wants you to know that we have intelligence document which we can pass to you as well as signs in the field that they have opened an attack, which all of this they have communicated to their forces to improve their position. They have inflicted [Page 683]on us _________ this both in tanks and personnel. And only then we have reacted and we can document it to you.
K: I understand that but that doesn’t change the situation.
D: No, and therefore, as a result of this battle have developed, there has been no marching in the field of what the situation was when the ceasefire initiated. And therefore it is totally impossible for us or for anyone to accept that paragraph two because it is completely obsolete. It is no possibility, speaking in terms of responsibility, and it is in terms of fixing it. So that is why we would—not only we—nobody would be able to reascertain it.
K: That I agree with but supposing such a paragraph passes. What difference does it make?
D: It makes only a difference in the sense that it would allow the Russians and the Egyptians to demand withdrawal of our forces on some of the positions that they are right now as a result of the Egyptian violation. That is the point.
K: Because quite frankly, the President feels that if we don’t agree. I mean, what they are proposing we will not agree to which is in a position . . .
D: That of course is ridiculous because that wasn’t even asked by the resolution.
K: Since nobody will be able to tell where that was to begin with it cannot be given practical effect.
D: That is why it shouldn’t be adopted this paragraph.
K: But it is important for any future attempt by the Egyptian side to try to grab some territory that we did not insist that the fait accompli is still . . .
D: That is why we accept the idea of observers. Because only when you have observers in the _________ mouth can you effectively tell whether movements have taken place so I think if I made the argument for the Russians in the discussions should be that now that there are observers a fixed position can be attained.
K: You know what will happen? There will be a majority for that position.
D: For the position of their attempt.
K: We have two choices. If we say withdraw to the position where they were at the moment of adoption of the decision on the ceasefire that’s ridiculous. That’s inconsistent with the resolution.
D: That shows that . . .
K: I know, let’s not argue about it. The second point is supposing they amend it to say at the time of the ceasefire.[Page 684]
D: That is what we were discussing because the first one I dismissed right away and on this the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense have a very documented development.
K: My problem is what do we do at the U.N.
D: That’s what I said . . .
K: We can veto the fourth Russian draft. That we can do. We can abstain from when it says at the time of the decision of the ceasefire but we can’t veto that.
D: I think the thing is very—if I may, I don’t see what difficulty there is to say that before the Security Council can determine who was at fault they cannot demand of any side that we acted through the fighting.
K: Yes, but they could take the position, it doesn’t make any difference who was at fault. The easy way to settle it is to go back to the line.
D: But who will determine this?
K: I think it is indeterminable.
D: That is why one should not accept a resolution that cannot be executed. Because that is what put us in our . . .
K: OK Fine. Bye.
- Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, Kissinger Telephone Conversations, Transcripts (Telcons), Chronological File, Box 23. No classification marking. The blank underscores indicate omissions in the original.↩