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

36. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, May 24, 1977, 10:55 a.m.–12:30 p.m.

PARTICIPANTS

• His Royal Highness Prince Fahd
• His Royal Highness Prince Saud
• Shaykh Ahmad Zaki Yamani
• Shaykh Muhammad Aba al-Khayl
• Dr. Ghazi al-Qusaibi
• Ambassador Ali Abdallah Alireza
• Shaykh Nassir Al-Rajhi
• Mr. Nizar O. Madani
• The President
• The Vice President
• Secretary of State Cyrus Vance
• Zbigniew Brzezinski
• Assistant Secretary of State Alfred L. Atherton, Jr.
• William B. Quandt, NSC Staff
• Hamilton Jordan
• Robert Lipshutz
• Jody Powell
• Ambassador-designate John C. West
• Isa Sabbagh, Interpreter

Crown Prince Fahd: I would like to begin with a few remarks. First I would like to express my thanks for the warm reception you have given me.

President: It was a great honor to have you here. The American people have a great interest in Saudi Arabia, and it is a pleasure for me to meet you. We will have a chance to talk of the opportunities and of the achievements that bind our two nations together. There is no other country with whom we have closer or more friendly relations than Saudi Arabia. We have observed with appreciation the many instances in recent months when you have demonstrated that friendship. This morning we can talk of several issues, and again this evening, and tomorrow we can have a follow-up session. Our leaders will be available to discuss specific issues on the Middle East, defense, trade, and energy with you. They can all speak for me. Then we will have a follow-up meeting tomorrow. I would like to start with the question of peace in the Middle East.

Crown Prince Fahd: With pleasure.

President: Our country is completely dedicated to the search for a permanent and just peace in the Middle East. I have been very pleased at the constructive attitude of all the Arab leaders I have met this year. This year is one which we believe might be the best time in many decades for major progress toward peace. The recent elections in Israel² have caused us some concern because of comments made by Mr. Begin after the elections. I spelled out our own position in a speech at Notre Dame University on Sunday.³ I understand that you have read it and that you felt it expressed a good position. We must retain positions on both sides which will be acceptable to the Arab nations and to the Israeli people. The United States has an unshakable commitment to be sure that Israeli security is maintained. During this time of formation of a new government, we have to be very careful not to say anything or to take any action that will disturb the chances for progress. It would be helpful to have your thoughts on the progress that you envisage and to have your report on your recent meeting in Riyadh. I would also like to understand what role you would like to play as we work toward peace in the Middle East.

Crown Prince Fahd: In view of what you have just said about Israel, I can say that we agree that one should not prejudge events. We should wait until they form a government and then see its direction. At the same time, we are hopeful that any Israeli government will have an incentive to see that it is in their interests and in the interests of the area not to follow a course contrary to that which President Carter is seeking. We hope that what the press reports as being attributed to Mr. Begin would not represent his attitude once he assumes the responsibility of office.⁴ We feel, as do you, that this is an especially auspicious year to find a comprehensive and just solution to the Arab-Israeli problem, and as far as I know, all of the Arab leaders who have met you have expressed their genuine desire for peace. This is also our attitude. We say this because of a deep conviction that if anything bad happens in the Middle East, the amount of damage will be very great. It will be a disaster, not only to the Middle East but to the world. The only beneficiary would be another party which is lurking on the side lines waiting to reap the harvest. I do believe that there are many Jews in the United States and Israel who see clearly that peace is in their interest and of their people. Of course, the painful era that the Middle East has gone through has not been the result of recent events. The conflict is decades old. This fact by itself makes it important to follow a careful path, to control our emotions, and to do things in a studied way. Then hopefully we can succeed. I would like to say for the first time I have a feeling that on the Arab side there is a deep desire for peace. We realize the difficulties that President Carter will face in the process of bringing together the divergent views of the parties in a compatible way. One thing that I would like to emphasize is that when the Arabs say that peace is more beneficial to them than war, this is not out of fear or of capitulation, but out of a conviction that the other party, the Soviets, can exploit the situation if there is no peace. We are fortunate that reasonable Palestinian leaders also see it this way. They see it as do the Arab leaders. Of course, we exclude the Palestinian extremist leaders, whose views are injurious to the Palestinians themselves. We also know what the Soviet Union is really after, although it claims to champion the Arabs and the Palestinians.

During the recent visit by Palestinian leaders to the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union ostensibly urged the Palestinians to follow the path of moderation, but this was only for international opinion, to create a moderate image. We know what their designs are. Of course, we cannot ignore the Soviet Union or its power. For the past fifteen years, the Soviets have found entrees into the Arab world. This happened as a direct result of opportunities left open, if I may say so, by the United States. We fully realize that the Soviets attempt through propaganda, and so forth, to concentrate their efforts especially on Saudi Arabia. But unfortunately, the Saudi people are imbued with an unshakable religious fervor that shields them from Soviet and Communist intrigues. Having said this, as a pragmatist, I must recognize that there are some exceptions even in my own country to this rule. We are fully aware, and we hope that the Soviets are also, that the Soviets have lost footholds in our area—for example, in Egypt, Sudan, and in Lebanon. I don’t want to appear to congratulate myself, but the results that I have mentioned, in Egypt, Sudan, and Lebanon, were influenced by our contribution to mutual goals of peace in the area. In spite of this, the Soviets are trying again in Africa and near us. Of course, I do not blame them for their persistence. I am aware of the advantages they will have if they succeed. It may be thinking too far ahead, but we are aware of the fact that the Soviets will need oil in the future. That is why they concentrate on getting a strong foothold in the Middle East.

I would like to give you a synopsis of the talks held in Riyadh recently. King Khalid met Presidents Sadat and Asad. They reviewed their deliberations with you, Mr. President, and discussed other issues. They also thought that their talks were very constructive. King Hussein also sent an emissary who participated in the meetings at Riyadh. These deliberations took place at the time of the Likud victory. This was also discussed. It was agreed that in view of the new developments, it was essential to control our nerves. I am sure that you agree.

The problem of the Middle East is very complicated, and it evolves against a complex background. Now we must keep in mind that if the problem is to be solved, there will be beneficial results and if it is not solved, we need to think of the alternatives. The alternative could be another clash between the Arabs and Israel. What could then be expected? Only the Soviets could benefit.

In the event of Israel becoming victorious—and we should remember that there are now 21 Arab states and all of them with one or two exceptions have policies that are flexible and are favorable to the United States—but should anything drastic happen, some Arab leaders might be overturned and worse alternatives might replace them. This is because any alternative leaders would be committed to the Soviet Union. Then we would have a real problem. That is why I say that in order to realize peace this year—to show progress toward peace will help moderate Arabs and will increase their conviction that they are following the proper path with the United States.

What does Israel want? It wants a state for itself and assurances of its existence and independence. As far as I know, they have this. As far as the Arabs and Palestinian people are concerned, this is all right. What do the Palestinians want? They want their own home and they have even delineated the West Bank and Gaza as their home. What then is required? Israel must withdraw to the borders of 1967. These are the principles that have been laid down and the understandings that have been clarified. The Arab and Palestinian leaders understand this. We are agreed that this is the year for steady steps toward that goal. Maybe Israel will find that it is too much to start by the step of creating a Palestinian state. In our view, it is inevitable that we take that first necessary step, since that would bring the other steps quickly into existence. Because it is a fact that once Israel and the Palestinian state with recognized borders exist, this would lead to other elements of neighborliness which would easily fall into place. But, in our opinion, if Israel insists on having everything at once, then there would be obstacles. Thank you, Mr. President, for listening to my long speech.

President: It was very interesting and very constructive. The proposals that might be forthcoming this year must be acceptable to the people of the Arab countries and to the people of Israel. In our case, it is very important to have the support of Congress and of the American Jewish Community. There is, or has been until the Israeli elections, a sense of hope and progress that we might move forward. I am determined to sustain that hope and confidence, in spite of the recent elections. Mr. Begin’s statements since his election have been disturbing. I have not had a chance to meet him or to talk to him. My comments about Israel will encompass what I believe is the position of the Labor Party and hopefully of many people in Israel. They have espoused the provisions of UN Resolution 242 which encompasses substantial withdrawal from the post-1967 lines. My own public and private comments have included provisions for minor modifications in those boundaries to allow for some flexibility in a final settlement. The Israelis have never agreed to this, except as part of the UN Resolution. American public opinion and world opinion does agree to this position. I have also professed support for a Palestinian homeland. The basic question is the degree of independence of this homeland and its relationship with its neighbors, Jordan and Syria, for example. There is a great deal of concern that a completely independent state would be a focal point for a struggle for influence. This might come from Libya or the Soviet Union or others. We share this concern to some degree. There have been proposals that within the framework of relations with Jordan this concern might be alleviated. We have no firm proposal or opinion on this matter. We consider the first step to be a position that might be shared among the Arab leaders. So far we have not detected any such agreement. We realize that the Palestinian leaders cannot be controlled by Arab countries, but, of course, they have great influence. We have an agreement made by Dr. Kissinger that we would not recognize or communicate with the Palestinian leaders until they recognize Israel’s right to exist. So we share with you a recognition of the complexities of the Palestinian question. An additional problem is the rehabilitation or compensation of the refugees themselves.

The most important question for the Israelis is the definition of peace. They feel that an agreement on paper, even among well-meaning leaders, is not adequate, unless there is a demonstrated relationship and a better relationship among the peoples involved. We understand that this is the most difficult problem for the Arabs. The kind of things involved are open borders, free trade, tourism and diplomatic recognition. Of course, the boycott against Israel is an impediment and is a difficult problem for them. It has also been a problem for us and we appreciate your help in this matter. We hope we have made progress in this.

To close my comments, we obviously need some flexibility on both sides. It has to do with borders and the Palestinian issue on the Israeli side, and assurances of peace and good intentions on the part of the Arabs toward Israel. I would like to have your comments on these matters. [A dispatch is handed to the President.] You might be interested to know that Mr. Podgorny has been relieved of his duties.⁵

Prince Saud: Not as the result of the elections in Israel!

Crown Prince Fahd: Is this maybe a drastic change?

President: Possibly.

Secretary Vance: I think the process is just beginning there.

Crown Prince Fahd: I would like to take up the status of the Palestinian state, the question of whether it should be independent or connected. I will try to represent both the Saudi view and the views that I have heard from the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians. We in Saudi Arabia are convinced and we think that it would be most effective for an independent Palestinian state to be established. This is not an idle view, but rather one that is based on careful study and looking toward the future. Every Palestinian, whether he is living in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else, will tell you that Palestinians have been looking for fifty years for a place of their own to live. Of course, King Hussein has in the past declared officially that a Jordanian and Palestinian government should be linked together. There is no doubt that at the time this was a serious attempt by King Hussein to solve the problem. But when King Hussein sensed that the Palestinians themselves wanted their own independent entity, this happened at Rabat where this was discussed,⁶ he agreed and said that he was only trying to find a solution, but that he was prepared to go along with the Arab consensus. The preference of the Palestinians is to have their own entity and King Hussein has said that he would go along with this. But if we look to the future, it is inevitable that some form of eventual unity will occur. They are, after all, brothers.

Now, Mr. President, I have told you the Saudi Arabian attitude, but it is my understanding from the views of other Arab leaders in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, that they all agree that the first step, and to go along with Palestinian preferences, should be an independent Palestinian entity. Then they say that they envision a strong link between such an entity and Jordan. Now, I want to touch on an important point. You have mentioned the fears and forebodings of a Palestinian entity which will be vulnerable to external influences contrary to the interests of the surrounding countries. There is a complete conviction and assurance that such a Palestinian state will never get outside the fold of the policies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The basis of survival for such a state will depend on these countries.

Such a state would have common borders with Jordan, Syria and Egypt. But, of course, it is always possible, but very difficult when they are dependent on their neighbors, that such a country might get out of control. They might try, but this is unlikely. As a responsible person, I would like to be precise and to assure the President of the United States that there is not one Arab state among us—Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia—that would agree to an immediate link between a Palestinian state and Jordan. The attempt would be doomed to failure and would make the problem more difficult. I would like to invite the President to imagine what would happen to the Palestinians if they are left homeless. If we review the facts about the Palestinian people, we know that for 25 years they have had more ambitious goals. Now they have accepted a minimum objective and if they cannot even get that, then they will be vulnerable to external influences. Having said that, let me turn to the other side of the coin and invite you to think about what can be achieved if the Palestinians have their own homeland. They will breathe more easily, they will gain their self respect, and, in the main, they will be satisfied. That in itself will help to remove the complexes they have acquired in the past. They will be less vulnerable to outside influences. They will regain their pride and they will be at peace and be able to look for some kind of relationship with Jordan.

If I may refer to what the President mentioned, Dr. Kissinger’s promises, perhaps we can discover that those promises were made but that circumstances have now changed. Dr. Kissinger made a major effort, but perhaps I could give you my views on the present situation. The Palestinian leaders are looking forward to the moment when the United States will talk to them, whether that be official or completely secret, as they have told me. They now have a feeling of estrangement from the United States and they would like to talk to the most important country involved in the Middle East conflict, the United States.

If I may be permitted as a sincere friend to advise you, I believe that it would be very useful to the United States to get in touch with the Palestinians. Of course, this is your decision, but as a friend, I advise that you have contact with them here, or in Europe, or in an Arab country. There are many ways to do it. This is my belief.

President: Let me respond to that, and then I want your views on the definition of peace. We must have some common starting point for productive discussions. This is true for the PLO, for Begin, for the Arab countries, and for the United States. The only basis we see that is recognized by the world community is UN Resolution 242. We have been hoping that the PLO would publicly espouse its support for that resolution, except that the resolution only deals with the Palestinians as refugees, and they could exclude that part. Contrary to your own assessment, there is a feeling in the United States that the PLO is a radical group dedicated to the destruction of Israel. This is an obstacle which exists and that only the Palestinians themselves can remove. Perhaps you can comment on this point.

Crown Prince Fahd: I appreciate that this is the case in the United States, because of successive events and the way they have been portrayed in the press. I can see that this impression might be formed, but what we sense from the PLO leaders is totally different. Because as we know from them directly, they are willing to have their own state next to Israel with recognized borders. They have acknowledged their willingness to live side by side with Israel.

The Palestinians themselves say that when they have a state next to Israel with recognized borders, this will automatically mean that they recognize Israel. This is the opinion, as I have understood it, of Palestinian leaders. They add that if more is asked of them, this would indicate that someone wants them to get into an internal struggle among themselves. The Palestinian leaders maintain that if they have a state of their own, they can look the Palestinian people in the eye and tell them to keep quiet. If the reverse occurs, and they are asked to recognize Israel and to sign an agreement before getting anything, what can they then say to their own people, especially when there are those with bad intentions and who are susceptible to outside influences. As the President knows, if a Palestinian state next to Israel is created and if all we mentioned has been achieved, can we be sure that will prevent war? Of course not. My meaning is that we should try for the possible in a way which will create neighborly relations between the two sides. It is a fact that between nations with written agreements, wars can occur. This is my view.

President: I don’t disagree with His Royal Highness’ opinion, but it is a serious obstacle for us and Israel. It may prevent any PLO involvement in the discussions and, therefore, may prevent the discussions from ever occurring. It is that serious.

Crown Prince Fahd: Your purpose, as I understand it, is that the PLO should recognize Israel before anything happens. I appreciate this is an obstacle, but it would be a big problem for the Palestinians.

President: I know, but all the others accept the premises in the UN Resolutions. If the PLO persists in denouncing those resolutions, this gives Israel, and especially Begin, an excuse for rejecting those provisions of the resolutions that call for withdrawal from occupied territories.

Crown Prince Fahd: I would like to pose a question. If the PLO were to accept Resolution 242, with the exception that you mentioned, would Israel then be willing to recognize a Palestinian state and to recognize the PLO and to withdraw and to take the other steps? What is your belief?

President: I can’t answer that. I am not authorized to speak for Israel. I guess that the answer is “No.” But it would open the opportunity for us to include the PLO in the discussions and to marshal world opinion behind the possibility of a successful negotiation. We have a difficult time trying to find common ground for progress, and, although we have influence with Israel, we do not have control. Our influence is based on world opinion, on the opinion of the American people, and especially on the American Jewish community and members of Congress. I cannot act alone. I need some basis from which to point . . .

Crown Prince Fahd: We appreciate this.

President: I have to be able to point to good intentions by the Arabs and the Palestinians on a permanent basis. In the few minutes that we have left, I wish you would respond to the question on the kind of peace that Israel wants. I understand the difficulties, but if some steps to reduce the severity of the boycott could be taken, and if there could be more trade, and diplomatic recognition, and tourism, and open borders, this would be important for us to understand. This is the greatest and most important point for the Israelis.

Crown Prince Fahd: I did touch on this briefly, but let me add a few remarks. As is well known, the problem did not come about over night and this problem has been lived with for generations by Arabs and Jews. Therefore, to achieve our ultimate purpose, we must go in measured steps. As for diplomatic exchanges, many countries do not have these. For example, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union do not. Or even, if I may mention it, the United States and China have no diplomatic exchanges. We know that the United States and China are moving toward that, and perhaps the United States and North Vietnam, even. I still believe that to reach the results projected by President Carter, we must go step by step. Because once the foundations have been laid, then neighbors will find the need for diplomatic relations, social and economic relations, and so forth.

President: Under what circumstances and when could the boycott be eased in its severity?

Crown Prince Fahd: In my opinion, if these efforts produce good will and benefits, this subject will be reduced, if not removed. Once the state of belligerency is over and the state of peace is established, this would take care of this obstacle. These are exactly the type of steps that need to come one by one to reach the goal we seek. The whole area is fed up with the current situation. In the nature of things, these elements would fall into their proper place once the state of belligerency is terminated, the Palestinian state is created alongside Israel, and this would produce the situation that we seek.

President: Do you see improvement of trade relations being phased in step-by-step along with Israeli withdrawal in a step-by-step fashion?

Crown Prince Fahd: The way I see it, this is one of the steps that should come later. Because first we have to have both sides develop good will and confidence, and then that will lead to commerce, and so forth. Everyone’s nerves are very tense and there is a readiness for war. We cannot ignore these feelings on either side. That is why our attempt should be to get rid of the psychological barriers, to let each side relax, and the last steps to be taken, such as the termination of belligerency, the signing of agreements, and this would give us peace and let us live side by side. In our opinion, this is not only useful, but it is in the interests of Israel to encourage this to happen. It would help to build mutual confidence and both sides would stop threatening one another. They would turn inward and start the process of reconstruction. As one example, if we look at the educational program in Israel, we see that psychological indoctrination has been preparing the Israelis to hate Arabs. To improve this atmosphere, this should be changed on their side. One of the sociologists in Israel asked seven-and-eight-year-old children what they would do if they came to an Arab village. Their reply was that they would want to destroy it. The same feelings exist on our side.

President: I understand. This discussion has been very helpful for me in understanding some of the problems and some of the possible solutions. We have to recess now, but I will see you tonight⁷ and tomorrow. We still have things to discuss. I want your views on OPEC’s plans, IMF participation, the Law of the Sea Conference, the Red Sea, and on how we can work together there. This has been very helpful. Thank you.

Crown Prince Fahd: Thank you, Mr. President, especially for your forbearance and patience. I have learned a great deal.

[Omitted here is material unrelated to the Middle East.]

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Middle East File, Subject File, Box 66, Peace Negotiations 1977 Vol. I [I]. Top Secret. The meeting took place in the White House Cabinet Room. All brackets are in the original. Prince Fahd visited Washington on May 24 and 25.
2. See Document 35.
3. On Sunday, May 22, Carter spoke at Notre Dame University’s graduation exercises in South Bend, Indiana. He addressed numerous foreign policy issues and specifically cited the need for Israel to adhere to U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338. He noted that this was “the most propitious time for a genuine settlement since the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict” and that letting “this opportunity pass could mean disaster not only for the Middle East but, perhaps, for the international political and economic order as well.” (Public Papers: Carter, 1977, Book I, pp. 954–962; quotations are on pp. 959–960)
4. In an interview on NBC’s “Today” show after Likud’s election victory, Begin stated that the occupied territories were “our land” and in another speech given after the interview, described the territories as “the land of liberated Israel.” (Don Oberdorfer, “A Strain in Mideast Relations,” Washington Post, May 20, 1977, p. A19)
5. After a power struggle with Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev failed, Nikolai Viktorovich Podgorny was removed from his position of 22 years as Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and forced to leave the Politburo.
6. See footnote 8, Document 6.
7. President Carter and Prince Fahd met privately from 10:05 to 10:30 p.m. after the White House dinner that evening. (Carter Library, Presidential Materials, President’s Daily Diary) No memorandum of conversation has been found.