Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume IX, Arab-Israeli Dispute, August 1978–December 1980, Second, Revised Edition

324. Telegram From the Embassy in Egypt to the Department of State¹

Cairo, December 24, 1979, 0743Z

26218. For Ambassador Linowitz From Atherton. Subject: Autonomy Negotiations and the Sadat/Begin Summit.² Ref: State 322609.³

1. (S-entire text).

2. You already have my views, conveyed by Jim Leonard to Ned Walker over secure phone, about a Presidential phone call to Sadat and Begin.⁴ This message sets forth my thoughts about how we can help advance the negotiations, as requested by you in reftel.

3. I start from the premise that the Egyptian and Israeli negotiators, even at the plenary level, will not be able to resolve any of the basic substantive issues in the negotiations until there is agreement at the Sadat/Begin level on how they should do so. My second premise is the obvious one that it would be desirable for something to come out of the negotiations prior to the exchange of ambassadors [at] the end of February and, preferably, prior to the beginning of normalization and the establishment of Embassy offices in Cairo and Tel Aviv the end of January. Since it is not realistic to expect sufficient results in this timeframe to persuade any representative Palestinians to join the negotiating process, it seems to me our objective should be to produce sufficient evidence that things are moving in the negotiations to defuse Arab and third world reaction to normalization. In other words, we should try to have enough to show after eight months of negotiations not only to demonstrate that we take seriously the May target date but to give pause to the Saudis and other moderate Arabs, including moderate Palestinians, about launching new efforts to further isolate and punish Egypt.

4. Proceeding from these premises, my conclusion is that we need to take a hard look at ways in which we can help make something happen at the Sadat/Begin summit. Therefore, while I subscribe to much of Sam Lewis’ analysis (Tel Aviv 26726),⁵ I do not agree that we can wait until after the summit to decide whether and how we can begin to inject some substance into our full partner role.

5. Trying to influence what comes out of the summit can admittedly be a tricky exercise. We cannot get out in front of Sadat or appear to be pressing him to move more rapidly than he is prepared to do. This would be dangerous vis-a-vis the Israelis, and could also arouse Egyptian expectations that we are prepared to deliver more than may be possible through our own efforts with the Israelis.

6. At the same time, Vice President Mubarak and Prime Minister Khalil have independently suggested that President Carter communicate with President Sadat about the need to seek concrete progress at the summit. This suggestion results from their concern, based on the experience of the last two Sadat/Begin summits, that Sadat will again be reluctant in the intimate atmosphere of the summit to introduce a note of controversy and will, in fact, end up making further gestures to Begin on bilateral issues (e.g., accelerating the pace of normalization beyond what is called for in the peace treaty) without getting anything in return. An additional consideration is that, even if Sadat decides to press Begin harder this time than he has before, he will do so in such a general and eliptical way that the point will be lost on Begin, or that Begin’s response will be at such a level of generality that it will have no practical relevance for the specific nuts and bolts issues the autonomy negotiators are grappling with. This is a real risk, since Sadat has taken little interest that we are aware of in the specific issues under discussion in the autonomy talks and probably does not have a very precise picture of the specifics.

7. Despite the impatience of Sadat’s advisors, his tactic of not pressing Begin has probably been the right one up to now. If Sadat decides to let another summit go by without bringing any of the issues to a head, there is nothing we can do about it. But given the problems it will create for our own position in the area if the autonomy talks continue to be perceived as getting nowhere, it seems to me that at a minimum we need to take the initiative to compare notes on strategy with Sadat and plant a few ideas with him. I believe there is a way to do this without the risk of seeming to get out in front of Sadat or of being seen to press him to move faster than he desires. I have in mind the following two-part approach:

—First, I believe it would be desirable for the President to send letters to both Begin and Sadat which should be similar if not identical in content.⁶ In such letters, the President could note Ambassador Linowitz’s impressions from his recent visit to the area that all concerned feel the time has come to step up the pace of the negotiations. The President could say that he agrees this is desirable and note that if Begin and Sadat come to this conclusion in their meeting, the U.S. stands prepared to make its contribution to early progress in the negotiations.

—Second, I could be equipped with points to make orally to Sadat when delivering the President’s letter. This oral presentation could note that after both the Alexandria summit (Alexandria 0611)⁷ and the Haifa summit (Cairo 18416)⁸ Sadat had asked that President Carter be informed that the time was coming when he would ask us “to resume” our full partner role, that this third summit (then foreseen for October) could be decisive, and that the U.S. should be ready when the time comes. The objective, Sadat said on both occasions, was for he and Begin to reach agreement on giving directives to their negotiators. Against this background, we could ask Sadat if his comments after the last two summits still represent his views and how he plans to proceed in the January summit since, if he is looking to us to play a role, we need to know what his strategy is and what he expects from us. As part of such an oral representation, we should be prepared to note specific issues in the negotiations where we believe attention at the summit could usefully be focused with some hope of reaching agreement on appropriate directives to the Egyptian and Israeli negotiating teams.

8. I have given considerable thought to what those specific issues should be, and have also discussed this question with Jim Leonard and with my senior political section staff who have participated from the beginning in the autonomy talks. I agree with Jim Leonard (Cairo 26211)⁹ that it would be desirable to encourage specific agreement at the summit in three areas: something in the autonomy negotiations, something on Jerusalem, and something for the Palestinians. I also agree that the best issue to focus on arising out of the autonomy negotiations would be the size of the elected self-governing authority. (Incidentally, Boutros Ghali singled this out as one of the three issues on which he believes there should be an effort to reach early agreement; the other two were amnesty for Palestinian prisoners and giving an international flavor to the commission that would supervise West Bank/Gaza elections). I also agree with Jim that, so far as something for the Palestinians is concerned, the idea of a return of deportees is better than seeking Israeli agreement to amnesty prisoners who have been tried and convicted for security crimes.

9. With respect to Jerusalem, I have reservations about Jim’s fallback idea of suggesting discussions between Israel and representatives of the Christian and Muslim faiths about the holy places. My own view is that this would be perceived as accepting the long-standing Israeli position that the only questions related to Jerusalem that are open to discussion are those pertaining to the status of the holy places. My own preference would be to go for agreement on the right of Arab residents of East Jerusalem to vote in and stand for the elections to the self-governing authority. (Boutros Ghali is concerned that this would be seen as accepting the Israeli position that autonomy applies to people but not to land. I consider this a legalistic argument outweighed by the political symbolism of giving the vote to East Jerusalem Arabs.)

10. If we are to engage Sadat in a discussion of specific issues in the negotiations that might be on the summit agenda, it would be desirable to have some preliminary discussions with Khalil and Boutros Ghali to find out what they are recommending Sadat take up at the summit.

Atherton

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Middle East, Trips/Visits File, Box 116, 1/7/80 Aswan Summit: 12/79–1/80. Secret; Immediate; Nodis. Sent for information Immediate to Tel Aviv. Printed from a copy that indicates the original was received in the White House Situation Room. The memorandum, along with undated draft covering memoranda from Brzezinski to Carter and from Brzezinski to Vance, was conveyed from Hunter to Brzezinski for approval under a December 28 memorandum. Brzezinski neither approved nor disapproved the memoranda, but wrote “hold here” on Hunter’s memorandum. Under this notation, Dodson wrote “no distribution.” (Ibid.)
2. Sadat and Begin were scheduled to meet in Aswan, Egypt, beginning on January 7, 1980. See Document 327.
3. In telegram 322609 to Cairo, December 15, Linowitz instructed Atherton to “remain, insofar as possible, intimately involved in the planning and execution” of U.S. policy toward the autonomy negotiations. Linowitz added, “I would especially appreciate your personal participation in the forthcoming plenary and your views upon its conclusion as to how we can best advance the negotiations.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840140–1774)
4. According to the President’s Daily Diary, Carter spoke with Begin on the telephone from the White House from 11:28 to 11:33 a.m., January 1, 1980. Carter followed this with a telephone conversation with Sadat from 11:46 to 11:49 a.m., the same day. (Carter Library, Presidential Materials) No memoranda of conversation for these two exchanges have been found. However, in his personal diary entry for January 1, Carter wrote: “I called Begin, and he said the January 7 meeting in Aswan was very important. He thanked us for the $200 million increase in loan assistance to Israel, but said they need much more. When I called Sadat, he was prepared for Aswan and said, typically, he was absolutely committed to help on any issue, militarily or politically.” (Carter, White House Diary, p. 387)
5. In telegram 26726 from Tel Aviv, December 21, Lewis analyzed the upcoming summit between Sadat and Begin, concluding “we should not jump the gun by priming either of the parties for action. If, however, Roy and others close to the world of Sadat conclude that autonomy really is not on his agenda for the summit—which I find hard to believe—then a message urging that substantive issues be addressed there should go to Sadat, not Begin. And, finally, that if a call is made to Sadat, one should of course be made to Begin, but that specifics should be avoided, and no suggestion of U.S. pressure should be imparted. The message left with the Prime Minister should be simply this: that the second stage of the Camp David process is, if anything, even more important than the first in bringing about a settlement for the Middle East conflict and a lasting peace for Israel, and that President Carter continues to watch closely how it is evolving. The unspoken message will be heard clearly: ‘If things don’t begin to move, I will have to get into the act.’” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P850040–2545)
6. On the recommendation of Linowitz, Carter approved messages to Begin and Sadat praising the “dedication” each expressed for “achieving success” in the autonomy negotiations and impressing upon them the “critical” importance of the period ahead. In approving the draft messages, however, Carter noted on the undated action memorandum from Brzezinski, “It’s just baloney, but if it’s what Sol wants, OK. J.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Country File, Box 19, Egypt: 12/79–1/80) The message to Begin was conveyed in telegram 4052 to Tel Aviv, January 6. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Middle East, Trips/Visits File, Box 116, 1/7/80 Aswan Summit: 12/79–1/80) The message to Sadat was conveyed in telegram 4053 to Cairo, January 6. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P870047–1032)
7. See footnote 3, Document 272.
8. See Document 290.
9. Telegram 26211 from Cairo, December 23. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840157–2099)