196. Telegram From the Secretary of State to the White House and the Department of State1
Secto 1019. White House for the President and Dr. Brzezinski. Department for the Acting Secretary and Tarnoff. Subject: Jerusalem Political Committee Talks—The First Day.
1. Today combined the formal opening and first closed session of the Political Committee with the beginning of work in informal, bilateral meetings. Both sides have now tabled draft declarations of principles (sent by separate telegram)2 and are looking to us to come forward with a draft that attempts to find common ground. The Israeli draft incorporates much of the language of Resolution 242, while the Egyptian draft reorders the issues mentioned in Resolution 242 and tends to state them to further their interests. We have spent the afternoon developing the draft reproduced in paragraph 7 below.
2. I met early this morning for about one-half hour with Foreign Minister Kamel.3 Kamel stressed that Egypt expects active US participation in the work of the Political Committee. He repeatedly emphasized that Egypt needs quick progress on withdrawal and Palestinian rights, and he mentioned the importance of bringing Jordan into the negotiations. I told Kamel that we felt the committee should focus first of all on the declaration of principles and that our strategy would be to let [Page 947] Israel and Egypt put their drafts on the table before beginning our effort to bridge the differences. He agreed this was the best course.
3. At the same time I urged Kamel to give thought to presenting a counter-proposal to the Israeli proposal for the West Bank and Gaza and to consider the setting up of a working group on that issue. Kamel was very reluctant to do so. He felt the talks should concentrate at this stage on the declaration of principles. Only after other parties had joined the talks and Israel had made clear they are ready to accept Palestinian rights, Kamel said, would Egypt be able to present its ideas on a transitional regime for the West Bank and Gaza. Kamel repeatedly stressed the sensitivity of Egypt’s seeming to be dealing alone with Israel on the West Bank/Gaza issue; at one pont he described it as “dynamite.” In view of Kamel’s reluctance to come to grips with the issue directly, I suggested that the working group on the declaration of principles might also be charged with West Bank/Gaza problem since obviously the two are very closely connected. Kamel seemed to accept our explanation that it would be important to us in our work on the declaration of principles to have at least a general understanding of how Egypt would approach the West Bank/Gaza problem.
4. Kamel was perceptibly nervous (though this is his manner); he indicated he was not feeling well and it was clear that he is not comfortable with the idea of a long stay in Jerusalem. I assured him that the US will do all in its power to move the negotiations forward but stressed that the negotiations will of necessity be difficult and time-consuming and that we must all persevere and not allow ourselves to become discouraged. I said I thought it important that the Political Committee stay in continuous session rather than adjourn, so as to avoid giving the impression of a breakdown in the talks. Kamel agreed to this “as long as there is something to do.” He seemed somewhat bucked up by my remarks on the necessity to keep at it but again stressed that there must be progress in the shortest possible time—which, in answer to my question, he defined as “few weeks.”
5. We then went to the formal opening session where Dayan, Kamel and I made brief statements in presence of media representatives. Dayan, as host chairman, spoke first. He praised US efforts in the cause of Middle East peace, calling them a “basic and fundamental factor.” He stressed the need for peace but said it can only be achieved by “concession, compromise and mutual agreement” and warned against attempting “to solve our problems and differences by ultimatums.” Kamel also expressed appreciation for US peace efforts. He stressed that Egypt seeks a comprehensive peace based on withdrawal “from all the Arab territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, including Jerusalem,” not a separate peace. Predictably Kamel emphasized the need for recognition of Palestinian “national rights” and for [Page 948] self-determination. In my statement I pledged our active support for the efforts of the parties, stressed the need to come to grips now with difficult issues of substance, and repeated the three principles enunciated by you in your Aswan statement.4
6. The first closed session, which followed after a brief recess, lasted only about fifteen minutes. Dayan read the agenda and then noted, in connection with phrase “West Bank” in item (B), that Israel would use the term “Judea and Samaria.” Kamel immediately replied that as far as Egypt was concerned English version was proper one. Interestingly, having made reservation, Dayan went on in subsequent discussions to use term “West Bank.” Dayan tabled an Israeli draft declaration of principles and the Begin plan for the West Bank and Gaza. Kamel made a brief statement making clear Egyptian understanding that the Political Committee is meeting in the framework of the Cairo Conference with the aim of reaching a comprehensive settlement based on Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and a just solution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects, and that the agenda provides for discussion of all these problems. Egyptian delegation then passed out copies of an Egyptian draft declaration of principles after which Dayan, by previous agreement with Kamel and me, announced adjournment until Wednesday afternoon.5 Question of establishment of working groups was not raised.
7. We are transmitting separately the texts of the Israeli and Egyptian drafts of declaration of principles. There follows text of the proposed draft which we have done here and which, subject to any comments you may have, I propose to discuss with Dayan and Kamel tomorrow morning. My thought would be to have it ready to present at the Political Committee meeting that afternoon. This draft incorporates common language from the Israeli and Egyptian drafts, plus language from the agreed agenda for the Jerusalem meetings.
Begin text.
1. The Governments of the Arab Republic of Egypt and Israel are determined to continue their efforts to reach a comprehensive peace settlement in the region.
2. Within the framework of such a settlement the two governments express their willingness to negotiate peace treaties on the basis of full implementation of the principles of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 in all their parts.
[Page 949]3. There will be withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict and secure and recognized borders for all parties.
4. There must be a just resolution of the issues relating to the West Bank and Gaza which recognizes the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and enables them to participate in the determination of their own future. The resolution of these issues should be achieved through talks in which Egypt, Jordan, Israel and representatives of the Palestinians would participate.
5. There will be termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and the establishment of normal, peaceful relations through the conclusion of peace treaties.
End text.
8. Paragraph one of our draft is composed entirely of common language from Israeli and Egyptian drafts. So is paragraph two, with exception of the words “peace treaties,” “full implementation,” and “in all parts.” Paragraph three language is from 242 in its entirety. Paragraph four is a composite of language from agenda item number two, your Aswan statement and the US working paper. Paragraph 5 is 242 except for the final clause “and the establishment of normal, peaceful relations through the conclusion of peace treaties.” This language was taken from the Egyptian draft, with the addition of the word “normal.”
9. I think this is a fair and balanced draft. While I would not expect Israelis and Egyptians to accept it out of hand, I believe they will recognize that we have made a sincere effort to bridge the gap between their positions and that it fits our role as impartial mediator. I am sure both sides will see problems—in paragraph four in particular for the Israelis, and possibly in paragraph three for the Egyptians should they insist on more specificity on withdrawal. But at the very least I think the draft provides a good basis for getting negotiations underway.
10. Please let me know as soon as possible if you have thoughts on our draft or on the way we propose to proceed. I am planning to meet with Dayan at about 9:00 am and with Kamel at about 11:30 am local time tomorrow. Next formal session of the Political Committee is 3:00 pm tomorrow.
11. I had two other meetings with Americans passing through Jerusalem.
12. My first meeting of the day was with Rabbi Schindler,6 who saw Sadat last week and has met with Begin several times these past [Page 950] days. Schindler seemed somewhat disappointed with Sadat; Sadat asked Schindler to convey to Begin the now-familiar message that he (Sadat) has given everything and Begin nothing. Still, Schindler was not pessimistic. He thought Begin had not yet revealed his bottom line and that Begin could get away with pulling out all the settlements in Sinai if he tries, though obviously this would be politically difficult.
13. Finally, I met for over an hour with Clem Zablocki and his Congressional group at the end of the day.7 We had a good exchange from which it was clear that this important cross section of the House strongly supports the active role you have directed that we play in the current negotiations. They are overwhelmingly impressed with the mood for peace they found in the Arab countries they visited and with a few exceptions believe that Israel must do more to help keep the momentum alive. At the same time, they do seem to understand the difficulties Begin has in molding a consensus in the democratic Israeli political system against the background of 30 years of distrust of Arab intentions. On the key Palestinian question, I would say that this group believes a way must be found through an interim process to return the West Bank and Gaza to Arab authority and create a Palestinian entity linked to Jordan. They also are on the whole supportive of our selling F–15’s to Saudi Arabia following their visit there.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P850033–0474. Secret; Niact Immediate; Nodis.↩
- See Document 197.↩
- No memorandum of conversation has been found.↩
- The text of Vance’s opening statement is in the Department of State Bulletin, February 1978, p. 33.↩
- January 18.↩
- No memorandum of conversation has been found.↩
- No memorandum of conversation has been found. See footnote 3, Document 187.↩