233. Memorandum From the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Brzezinski) to President Carter1
SUBJECT
- Secretary Vance’s Meeting with Foreign Minister Dayan
Dayan broke no new ground in his discussions with Secretary Vance this afternoon,2 although he did say that Israel would try to develop a clearer concept of what might happen under the self-rule proposal after five years. Apart from that one indication of a willingness to develop new ideas, Dayan stuck to familiar positions.
—In Sinai, there will be no new settlements, and there will be no substantial enlargement of existing settlements, although some minor construction will continue.
—On the West Bank, any new settlements there must be approved by the Cabinet, and the political situation will be taken into account in approving settlements. The idea of a moratorium on settlements has [Page 1081] not been accepted, and not everything will be done in military camps in the future.
—On 242, Dayan claimed that there had been no change in how the Israeli government interprets 242, but he did acknowledge that Israeli proposals for dealing with the West Bank had changed under the Begin government. He argued strongly that we should worry less about the legal interpretation of 242 and should think more about whether the proposals of either the previous Israeli government or this government would be adequate to advance the peace negotiations.
—Secretary Vance specifically asked Dayan whether Israel could make a statement that “all of the principles of 242 apply on all fronts.” Dayan said that Begin would not be able to make such a statement, but that Israel’s position would not preclude the Arab parties from raising the question of withdrawal. When pressed, he said that even if adequate security measures could be devised for the West Bank, Begin would not agree to these areas returning to Jordanian or Jordanian/Palestinian authority. He implied that he would be somewhat more open-minded on that question.
—Dayan explicitly said that Israel would not go beyond the language of 242, and would not use the words “on all fronts” in a Declaration of Principles. He implied that some type of clarifying statement, such as the one made this morning—Israeli peace proposals do not contradict 242—could be made public, but Secretary Vance told him that, in our judgment, that would not be sufficient to remove doubts about Israel’s interpretation of 242.
—Dayan would agree to develop some ideas on how the review process might be carried out after five years, including the questions that would be decided at that point.
—Dayan asked for our best judgment on what language would be necessary in a Declaration of Principles to get Sadat’s agreement. Secretary Vance agreed to provide our assessment of what Sadat needs.
In your own talks with Begin, I think you should be quite firm in insisting that an Israeli statement that “all of the principles of 242 apply on all fronts” is absolutely essential if we are to be able to convince Sadat and Hussein that Israel is prepared for serious peace negotiations.