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

358. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, April 15, 1980, 3:02–5:10 p.m.:

SUBJECT

• Summary of the President’s Second Meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin

PARTICIPANTS

• President Jimmy Carter
• Vice President Walter F. Mondale
• Secretary of State Cyrus Vance
• Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
• Ambassador Sol Linowitz, Special Representative of the President
• Ambassador Samuel Lewis, United States Ambassador to Israel
• David Aaron, Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
• Harold Saunders, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs
• Ambassador James Leonard, Deputy Negotiator for the Middle East Autonomy Negotiations
• Robert Hunter, NSC Staff Member (Notetaker)
• Prime Minister Menachem Begin
• Yitzhak Shamir, Minister of Foreign Affairs
• Dr. Yosef Burg, Minister of Interior
• Ambassador Ephraim Evron, Ambassador of Israel to the United States
• Chaim Kubersky, Director General, Ministry of Interior
• Jacob Nehushtan, Minister, Embassy of Israel
• Yehiel Kadishai, Director, Prime Minister’s Bureau
• Brigadier General Ephraim Poran, Military Secretary to the Prime Minister
• Dan Pattir, Public Affairs Adviser to the Prime Minister
• Elyakim Rubinstein, Assistant Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Professor Ruth Lapidot, Legal Adviser to Foreign Ministry
• Gilad Stern, Assistant to the Minister of Interior

(From 3:05 until 3:30, the President and Prime Minister Begin met privately on the Rose Garden Terrace and in the Oval Office.² They then joined the others in the Cabinet Room).

The Vice President said that Prime Minister Begin looks handsome.

Prime Minister Begin said: “handsome I was not born!” (laughter)

The President said that he understands that the two delegations had a discussion before the meeting on the Continuing Committee.³ He asked Ambassador Linowitz if that were correct.

Ambassador Linowitz said: yes sir.

The President asked Minister Burg if he would care to comment on the meeting.

Minister Burg said he had not been there.

The President called on Ambassador Linowitz.

Ambassador Linowitz said that we had framed this paragraph (see attachment)⁴ to codify the sense of the group on the Continuing Committee. We should read it, and then think about it. (He then read the attached statement).

Minister Kubersky said that this statement raised several questions. Maybe we should write it in general terms, and give examples. Good examples are water and economic cooperation; and Ambassador Linowitz agrees. His question is mainly on the last sentence: what will happen until there is agreement? When the Self-Governing Authority is elected and established in office, some spheres may not be defined—according to the original draft: “Pending agreement, existing conditions will continue.” What does “existing conditions” mean? It needs definition.

The President asked: where?

Minister Kubersky said it was now out (of the draft, where it had been the final sentence of the original U.S. draft).

Prime Minister Begin asked whether two deletions had been agreed upon.

Minister Kubersky said yes. But the problem of the (missing) last sentence is still a problem, along with “source of authority” and residual powers. Ambassador Linowitz had written: “Pending agreement, existing conditions will continue.” And the Continuing Committee may change its character. According to Camp David, the Continuing Committee is for discussions, not operations.

Ambassador Linowitz said that we have not described that it would “have certain authority.” If there is understanding on the source of authority and residual powers, maybe it would be easier.

The President said that to have a concept, in general terms, is all right now. He can’t speak for Egypt. The powers to be transferred to the Self-Governing Authority and retained for Israel are not in (this paper); maybe other issues can be in the Continuing Committee. It could in a few months determine water rights. It will give flexibility for progress during the next 40 days, to determine the division of powers.

Minister Burg said that Prime Minister Begin had not seen this paper.

Prime Minister Begin said that he will study it.

Minister Burg asked if the understanding is that the question here has to be talked over with the Egyptians.

The President said that he guesses it will be all right. He has not seen the language.

Minister Burg asked if they could talk more about it.

The President agreed.

Minister Burg said “primo” and then “excuse me.”

Prime Minister Begin said Minister Burg should skip that and just say “second.”

Minister Burg said that residual categories are not mentioned (in the paper)! Where are they? There are three categories: those to be transferred—in principle; those to be shared and coordinated—here it says shared; and residual—where are they? He asked to be allowed to get this out of his system. What about the residual categories? He personally likes not to postpone deciding on economic cooperation. It is a legal question, and should be discussed now—not delayed. This is a small country, and we should do this before (the agreement). The idea of a veto is no good. Eighteenth-century Polish governments fell because of the veto, under Prime Minister Bishinsky (?).⁵

Prime Minister Begin said that one man disagreed, and the whole parliament went home. Professor Brzezinski remembers!

Dr. Brzezinski said that is why the Prime Minister and he are both here! (laughter)

Minister Burg said that there were three partitions of Poland. Therefore, what if there is too much of a veto?

The President asked: a what?

Minister Burg said: a veto. It needs to be clarified. In between, what happens if the military goes out before the civilians are ready. It should be there on the same date, if a vacuum is to be avoided. If the veto is added, there will be a stronger problem.

Minister Kubersky said that because of practical problems of daily life, water and other services must be supplied. When the military government is withdrawn, the civilian administration would continue to operate until there is agreement. When there is agreement, there will be a transfer. Would there be a vacuum? A veto on political problems is bad enough; but where it applies to the supply of services, the veto can cause paralysis.

Ambassador Linowitz said that, first, residual categories are not here (in the paper) and were not intended to be here. What the Continuing Committee would do is deal with issues not resolved before the overall agreement is finished. It would not deal with residual powers. Second, with regard to economic cooperation and similar issues, there would be three steps: try to get full agreement; if not, agree on principles and work in as much detail as possible; and if we can’t gain even principles, then use the Continuing Committee. Third, Camp David says that the military government and the civilian administration go out at the same time. Israel’s proposal is not in Camp David, and there could be a problem with Egypt.

Minister Burg said that if we cannot get to our target—but try to do so—then the Continuing Committee would become an incentive not to solve problems.

Ambassador Linowitz said that it would help to introduce this paragraph to indicate a joint commitment—to the heads of agreement, to May 26, and to accelerate the talks to get as much as possible.

Prime Minister Begin asked if he could have the floor.

The President said: “you have it.”

Prime Minister Begin said that he has read the paper two or three times, and understands it. Therefore he will make some remarks, and think aloud. They will need to take the paper home to study it for tomorrow. In the meantime: first, today and tomorrow we need to agree on certain principles submitted by Israel this morning. He would like to know if they are agreed, to be suggested to Egypt for its consideration. He proposes that we not just agree on just this (U.S. paper), and leave out the most basic problems—such as the question of the Administrative Council and the Self-Governing Authority. If we can agree that the Self-Governing Authority is an administrative council, then we can come to the Continuing Committee. We should not just announce the Continuing Committee and accelerated negotiations: that will not suffice.

The President agreed that there should not be just this (i.e. the Continuing Committee).

Prime Minister Begin said that we need agreement on a set of points.

The President agreed.

Prime Minister Begin said that second, the average reader will think we have agreed to abolish the Continuing Committee.

The President asked why.

Prime Minister Begin said that since Camp David originally says that it will deal with the 1967 displaced persons.

President Carter said he believes that the last sentence includes that. This is not a departure from Camp David.

Prime Minister Begin asked if it were clear.

The President said yes.

Prime Minister Begin said that at Camp David, Israel said they would accept a reasonable number of persons.

The President said 100,000!

Prime Minister Begin said several tens of thousands. On zeros, he never exaggerates. (laughter)

The President said: Okay, several tens of thousands.

Prime Minister Begin said that he will think it over. There are absorption problems; but he will think it over. It is a human problem. He would like to do it (expand the Continuing Committee?), but not make it look as though we are abolishing the Continuing Committee’s main task of dealing with the displaced people of 1967. On the Continuing Committee, there are two possibilities: to be very specific or put it in general terms. He prefers the latter, since it is not in existence yet. Otherwise, it would be putting the cart before the horse: “economic”; “detailed negotiations”; “water.” It would be better to agree on: “matters of common concern and cooperation”—that’s enough—“are referred to the Continuing Committee.” Maybe we can put further details in abeyance for a while. A partial detailing, with others left out, would leave the impression that our work is not finished. “Matters of common concern” is good. “Coordination will be required, etc.” First of all, we have to reside on basic principles, not on this paper. The United States would be in the Continuing Committee (according to the U.S. paper): is this a change of Camp David?

The President said no.

Prime Minister Begin said: really?

The President said: well, go ahead and talk.

Prime Minister Begin said that he does not see it in the Camp David agreement. If it is agreed, then all right. The question is, why is the U.S. needed in this Continuing Committee? The U.S. is not in all committees, is it?

Minister Kubersky said that in the negotiations, the U.S. is in all committees. It is a full partner.

Prime Minister Begin asked: in all committees?

The President said: all.

Prime Minister Begin said that that is a serious answer. Then we don’t need the line (in the paper referring to U.S. membership). We do not need to single it out. We should just agree that the U.S. will take part, as on all committees. Otherwise, it will seem as though we are changing Camp David. It (the reference) is not needed. Therefore, we should not write it down, but agree that the U.S. representative or delegate will be in when the Continuing Committee is set up. He would like to consult on the U.S. paper, and reply definitely tomorrow. (The Israeli delegates conferred among themselves).

Minister Burg said he would like to strengthen the last point. In his Weltanshauung, he has no ideological homeland but the West—that is the United States—ideologically or philosophically. The Prime Minister has said two things: Here it is written Egypt, Jordan, and the Self-Governing Authority. To add that the U.S. would be in would mean changing a paragraph of Camp David. Sometimes that is a little bit bad. Other changes would be possible. People would say: why were you not against this change? It is a matter of formulation. Second, the U.S., as a full partner, would also here become involved in administration in a certain sense. If the U.S. is interested in this, Israel would love and like it to do it. But does the U.S. need this? (laughter) These are two strong points: first, the change in formulation; and second, the U.S. will take a role leading to its being a full partner. If the U.S. were involved in the practicalities, therefore administratively there would be a “superauthority” on the Self-Governing Authority. Please think this over, as Israel will do.

Professor Lapidot said that Article 3 of Camp David says: “. . . representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the self-governing authority will constitute a continuing committee. . .” This expresses who should belong. To add the United States, we would need to amend Camp David.

The President asked Ambassador Linowitz to describe the Egyptian position. The U.S. is not asking gratuitously to inject the United States into the Continuing Committee. This means added problems. According to the Associated Principles, paragraph 5, the United States is in: “The United States shall be invited to participate in the talks on matters related to the modalities of the implementation of the agreements and working out the timetable for the carrying out of the obligations of the parties.”

Prime Minister Begin asked where this is found.

The President said in point C–5.

Secretary Vance said: on page 26.

The President said that if Egypt agrees that the U.S. will not serve, this is fine with us.

Prime Minister Begin said that they can do without it (i.e. a formal reference), and agree on it . . . in general terms, we need guidelines.

Ambassador Linowitz said that we want to deal with difficult problems. We are at a critical time, and near agreement. But the big issues have not been dealt with effectively. We can agree that there will be no agreement. The point now is that we have a formula with which Egypt can agree. The U.S. urges Israel to think seriously on what we can try to do with the Continuing Committee. If we can’t agree on principles or details, they can go to the Continuing Committee. Israel’s rights would be preserved in the interim; Israel should have no concern for it. Egypt proposed that the United States be in the Continuing Committee. This provides an added dimension to its discussions. It would be useful to Israel and to Egypt that the U.S. would be closely involved. The U.S. is not pressing; but Egypt wants the U.S. in badly. If Israel does not want that, it should tell Egypt.

The President said that this is the role the U.S. would play. Where issues are not resolved, the Continuing Committee could function for a while, and maybe resolve issues with experience. Exclusion of the U.S. is what Egypt is trying to avoid. If Israel feels that on unresolved issues—economic relations, water—if Israel and Egypt and the Palestinians want to do this without the U.S., then Israel should decide. Egypt wants to get us past May 26th, before there is an impression of failure. The Continuing Committee, with the U.S., goes ahead and works as the Self-Governing Authority is set up.

Minister Burg said that the U.S. is a full partner. This Continuing Committee is set up after the elections and the setting up of the Self-Governing Authority. This is not the answer for May 27th.

Ambassador Linowitz said that Egypt proposed that the U.S. be a member of the Continuing Committee.

The President said that this is so that the Continuing Committee can go on working on issues that are not resolved.

Minister Burg said that the Continuing Committee is for after the inauguration and the elections. Is something further needed for after May 26th?

The President said he thinks so.

Prime Minister Begin said: maybe yes or no.

The President said that if all issues are resolved, then the Self-Governing Authority can deal with water, etc. Security for Israel, therefore, is not concerned here, except for definitions. All he wants is that there be no failure on the 26th. The negotiating group can continue under Camp David.

Minister Kubersky said that it (the Continuing Committee) cannot be established on May 27th.

The President said that yes, it can.

Minister Kubersky said that there is an interval after May 27th.

The President disagreed. It can start at the same time as the inauguration of the Self-Governing Authority.

Minister Kubersky said this could take many months. We (i.e. the autonomy talks) can continue to exist.

The President agreed. He cannot speak for Sadat, but he guesses that, in 40 days, if there is obvious progress and good faith, then probably—he doesn’t know, but he hopes so—Sadat will let us continue as we are now. When the Self-Governing Authority is set up, then issues can go to the Continuing Committee and be resolved.

Prime Minister Begin said that the problem of international communications is a serious problem. There are problems of taxation and customs. Israel wants an economic entity, with a free movement of goods—and there are other problems, they can make a list. Therefore, this (reference) should be expressed in general terms: “Matters of common concerned shall be. . .” They would like to consult tomorrow, and submit proposals. The word “augmented” creates certain impressions. It is a change. They don’t want Egypt to say it is a change, and therefore why not others? In practice, this may be a dangerous precedent. We need to keep to the Agreement. For two weeks at Camp David, it was hard to get an agreement.

The President said that he hopes before Wednesday⁶ afternoon, Minister Burg and others can talk about powers and responsibilities.

Minister Burg said there is too much.

The President asked if it was 20 areas?. . . And Israel should say which it would give, which it wishes to retain, and others—on which we would either say we failed or put into the Continuing Committee. Therefore, this list will undoubtedly be different from what Egypt decides. This is for the 40 days of negotiations.

Prime Minister Begin said that, on the categories, Ambassador Linowitz had suggested them, and so they were approved: those for complete transfer; those that are shared; and those that are reserved. This should be accepted. Does Ambassador Linowitz have comments on the Israeli paper?

Ambassador Linowitz said that the negotiators had agreed on 18 powers and responsibilities. This paragraph will not be put in the agreement for 30 or 40 days. The Palestinians will want to ask questions about land, water, economic relations—so it will help to have them in this document. He has two questions. First, if we use these as illustrations—“for example”—will this be all right?

Prime Minister Begin said he would think it over, and doesn’t reject the idea on the spot.

Ambassador Linowitz said that, speaking as one lawyer to another, he is making progress. Second, if Israel would feel better, regarding the U.S. role, instead a Continuing Committee would be set up with the U.S. named to it.

Prime Minister Begin said no, this is not from the Camp David Accords: “During the transitional period, representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the self-governing authority will constitute a continuing committee. . .” Very good; so it is written. There is the inauguration, then the Self-Governing Authority starts. Then there is the Continuing Committee.

The President said that Camp David doesn’t say that. It says in the transitional period: “. . . will constitute a continuing committee. . .” It doesn’t say wait five days—that is in the entire period: as soon as the Self-Governing Authority is set up.

Prime Minister Begin said that it says: “during.”

The President said that it does not say: “will be established.”

Prime Minister Begin said: during the transitional period—after the Self-Governing Authority is inaugurated.

The President said that he reads English! It doesn’t need to be set up.

Prime Minister Begin said: not the very day the Self-Governing Authority, the very day it is inaugurated. It says “During the transitional period . . .”

The President said that in Hebrew he doesn’t know, but in English. . . If it says “will be constituted,” yes. But it says “will constitute.”

Minister Burg said: but not before.

The President and Secretary Vance agreed.

Minister Burg quoted: “The United States shall be invited to participate in the talks on matters related to the modalities of the implementation of the agreements and working out the timetable for the carrying out of the obligations of the parties.”

Prime Minister Begin said that they would think it over.

The President asked Ambassador Linowitz when he would see a list of authorities.

Prime Minister Begin asked whether Minister Kubersky could speak.

The President said: please.

Minister Kubersky said that on January 16th, at Mena House, Israel presented its model.⁷ In it, Israel delineated powers and responsibilities, chairmen, divisions. It gave details on each of the divisions and the details of sections. The Israeli model has three categories. First, they described in the model all powers and responsibilities to be given to the Administrative Council—in Israel’s opinion, all the elements needed for full autonomy. They did a comparative study with the military government and the civilian administration. They took the powers in category number 1, which cover more than 80% of those of the military and civilian government—there is a difference between military government and autonomy, under the Administrative Council. The second category includes powers and responsibilities of shared powers.

Prime Minister Begin asked what are the 18 powers?

Minister Kubersky said that they are 80%. He will tell what they are later.

Prime Minister Begin said that the list is important.

Minister Kubersky said that in the third category are the residual powers retained by Israel. This draft, this proposed model, is under Camp David. He asked Egypt to tell if Israel had forgotten something. Now for the details: the Administrative Council would have 11 members, including a chairman and 10 members. Each would be the head of a division. Therefore, they suggest general powers. They should have the power to issue regulations, set up a budget, issue contracts, sue and be sued, and to employ staff. The Administrative Council can delegate to heads of divisions. The divisions can function within the framework of the Council. (He then listed some of the powers of the following divisions: agriculture, health, relations (?), labor and welfare, finance, transport, education and culture, administration of justice, local affairs). Each division would be managed by a director general, with special assistants and helpers. The chairman will coordinate, and have non-elected functionaries, in statistics, civil service, publicity, and archives. There would also be legal officers, an ombudsman, and others. There would also be two zonal representatives, who would work with Israeli authorities on an ongoing basis. This represents responsibilities for coordination.

This is the Israeli model, which was rejected totally by Egypt. Ambassador Leonard said that he welcomed the Israeli model, and said that it seemed to mark the beginning of a new phase of the negotiations. The U.S. warmly welcomed it. No details were discussed after this, and the Egyptian model was submitted. Ambassador Linowitz was there at the Accadia (Hotel), where Israel stated the categories and prepared a listing. Israel worked and Egypt rejected it. There was no agreement on details, but on one point—with U.S. help—in technical planning. This is a meaningful agreement. This understanding could be the umbrella for many subjects. Israel said shared; Egypt said coordinated. They need to agree on two levels: planning and implementation. They have not agreed yet, even on the agreed list. The Israeli approach consists of three categories . . . there is understanding on many functions, a remarkable number. Ambassador Linowitz remembers. It was done ad referendum.

Prime Minister Begin said: thank you.

The President asked Ambassador Linowitz to explain the difference between the Israeli and Egyptian positions.

Ambassador Linowitz said that Egypt did not like the Israeli presentation. It told the Self-Governing Authority how to run itself. There was a number of asterisks on the transferred powers, which Egypt said took away too much. This was the heart of the Egyptian intemperate rejection. The Egyptian proposal rests on an assumption: there should be three areas—legislative, executive, and judicial. This went beyond Camp David. Israel—showing admirable restraint—did not reject the Egyptian model, but merely said that it was “totally unacceptable!”

Minister Burg asked to speak one sentence. Israel said that the areas to be transferred were quite a lot: more than for municipalities.

The President agreed.

Minister Burg said it was the majority of powers.

Minister Kubersky said that when Israel made its presentation, they said that it did not have to be taken per se. They took into account the care needed when negotiating. Therefore, there are many asterisks. Ambassador Leonard said 45.

Professor Lapidot said: 48!

Minister Kubersky said that the asterisks are not part of the Bible. Many are for negotiations, and were put in automatically.

The President said they had done so! In addition to “security,” they had not defined what else they would retain.

Ambassador Linowitz said that there are three additional areas: international commerce, security, foreign affairs, and settlements.

(A pause in the conversation followed).

Prime Minister Begin said that his impression is that the U.S. would like Israel’s answer to tell the Egyptians. They (the Israeli delegation) would like the U.S. reply to their paper. Or they could remain in Washington. They were planning to go directly from Washington to home at noon on Thursday.⁸

Minister Kubersky said it is in the afternoon.

Prime Minister Begin said that if the President wants a 24-hour postponement. . .

The President said that the U.S. would respond tomorrow, or later if need be. He has some questions for tomorrow.

Prime Minister Begin said: yes sir.

The President said that one concerns Sadat’s being for Gaza-first, if we need an alternative to a Self-Governing Authority for all the territories. Sadat wants it for Gaza and the West Bank, but Gaza-first as a fall back.

Prime Minister Begin said that Israel’s position has been misunderstood. At Aswan,⁹ Sadat mentioned Gaza-first. In their third talk he (Prime Minister Begin) had asked Sadat whether he meant first dealing with and implementing an agreement there first. Sadat had replied: no, that he wanted agreement on both the West Bank and Gaza and then to apply it in Gaza-first. So there was no such proposal as Gaza-first. He had asked Sadat. Sadat said that first there must be a genuine agreement. Thus there is no Gaza-first in this sense.

The President suggested that they go on, since there are difficult issues to face, and he would like to have alternatives under consideration. He prefers—and Prime Minister Begin and Sadat do, too—that the Self-Governing Authority be freely elected on the West Bank and Gaza simultaneously. If not, then we should keep open our options on Gaza-first. There is a problem, important to Prime Minister Begin, of Jordanian citizens in East Jerusalem, regarding the vote. This is crucial for Egypt. How can they vote in Jordan and not on the West Bank? If there is no agreement on this issue, then it could be left open with implementation in Gaza-first. They don’t need to vote, since Gazans are not Jordanian citizens.

Prime Minister Begin said that no, we should not leave this question open. He told Sadat at Aswan about a traditional story from the Middle Ages. A learned man served a prince. The prince asked the learned man to convert to Christianity, and he would make the man very great. The man refused. The prince pressed him. Finally, he said that he would give the man three days to think about it. The man went home and thought: what did I say? I need time to think? I have denied my faith in God. And he cursed himself. The prince cut off his legs. This is fact, not legend. Before he died, the man wrote the most famous prayer for Yom Kippur—because of those three days. He (Prime Minister Begin) has said this to Sadat and to the President, too. He will not wait. He will answer now. Sadat said that his was not a proposal, it was just something to think about. Ambassador Linowitz said to think about a flag (over Jerusalem Holy places). To Sadat he (Prime Minister Begin) had said: does this mean sovereignty? And Sadat had said: yes and no. He had said to Sadat: Arab sovereignty and an undivided Jerusalem is a contradiction in terms. Never do Jordanian citizens cast votes in Jordan.

The President asked if this were right. Don’t they?

Professor Lapidot said there hadn’t been any elections in 13 years.

Prime Minister Begin said that there is a difference on Jerusalem. Israel put its law on Jerusalem in toto—but not on Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza district. Israel is sovereign in toto. Therefore, it can’t be said that they vote for the Jordanian government. Elections were postponed.

The President asked: does that therefore mean no elections?

Prime Minister Begin answered: yes, there would be elections; but the President had asked about Jerusalem. In Jerusalem there are Judean citizens. Some opted for Israeli citizenship. They have 80–90,000 Jews in Israel who are not citizens, and they do not vote for the Knesset. To have a vote in Jerusalem for the Arab residents: this is out of the question. It is absolutely impossible. It means repartition.

The President asked about absentee voting.

Prime Minister Begin said that Ambassador Linowitz had brought that idea up. But what change does that make? Israel says that if the inhabitants in Jerusalem vote for the Administrative Council, then this is repartition, since there would be two jurisdictions, since the Arabs would be under the Administrative Council and the Jews would be under Israel. So he had said at Camp David. He never misled anyone.

The President said he knows.

Prime Minister Begin said that he and Sadat had written separate letters about it. There should be no illusions; there can be no repartition and no vote. The city cannot be divided.

The President said he sees how firmly Prime Minister Begin feels about it. If an American lives in either West or East Jerusalem, he can vote in the United States. This does not encroach on sovereignty. His judgment is that the entire prospect of elections on the West Bank would be destroyed. There can be no elections if we take away the franchise from these people who happen to live there.

Minister Burg said he would respond not in sentiment, although Jerusalem is in the Bible more than 660 times, and is in the Koran not once. He will speak as a statesman. The logic is this: a U.S. citizen in Jerusalem can vote for the President of the United States, because he wants to be ruled by the President here. A citizen in Jerusalem can vote in municipal elections, which, in Israel, is independent from citizenship—one just has to live there. But a citizen, to vote for an authority with no authority over him (is different). The Self-Governing Authority has no say in East Jerusalem. So they can’t vote for it.

The President said that he can understand what Minister Burg is saying, but does not see the logic. Can Israeli settlers on the West Bank vote for the Knesset? There is an exact parallel here. Minister Burg says that Israelis have the right to live there, and Arabs to live. . .

Minister Burg said that the Self-Governing Authority gives no citizenship.

The President said that they can vote in Jordan.

Prime Minister Begin said that Israel had never said so.

Minister Burg said that that had never been excluded.

Prime Minister Begin said: thank you! If they have the right to vote for the Jordanian parliament, why not the Administrative Council?

Minister Burg said he disagreed.

Prime Minister Begin said: all right, but Minister Burg had quoted a thesis, and he (Prime Minister Begin) is a lawyer. (He continued): Mr. President, there is a great principle here. If Jerusalem residents do not vote, he (the President) is saying that this would destroy the elections.

The President said it was accurate.

Prime Minister Begin said that Israel is being blamed. Why blame this on them? No one in Israel would agree to such an event. Only the Communists—6 out of 120 Knesset members—would agree. There is complete agreement. Therefore, how can it be changed. Israelis speak of this city. The Government of National Unity said that Israeli law should be applied to Judea and Samaria. It did not accept it. But it did—and the opposition led on this—apply Israeli law to Jerusalem. It is a city; it became one. When Jordan was there, Israelis could not pray at the Western Wall. Now it must be undivided.

The President agreed.

Prime Minister Begin said that, therefore, people there can’t vote.

The President said that he hopes that Ambassador Linowitz and he haven’t taken the vote away in Jordan away from people of East Jerusalem! He thinks it would be a waste of time to hold elections; then there must be an alternative means to set up the Self-Governing Authority—some other procedure. He has some ideas. One he had suggested in private to Prime Minister Begin, who said he didn’t like it.

Prime Minister Begin said he is speaking sincerely, and for all his colleagues and all but 6 members of the Knesset: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is sovereign there, on the basis of the 1967 law.

Ambassador Linowitz said that they had talked at length about this several times. If Prime Minister Begin is concerned about any suggestion for dividing Jerusalem, we should be able to draft something to take care of that. But Prime Minister Begin seems to feel viscerally that the right to vote leads to a divided Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Begin said: yes.

Ambassador Linowitz said he was sorry: he would like to assure Prime Minister Begin.

Prime Minister Begin said that it is not a matter of assurances. What could Israel want? What does it need? This is not religion or sentiment. It is a fact. Jerusalem is sacred to the three monotheistic religions. Israel does not interfere with the religions. The Copts and the Abyssinians ask Israel for help. Egypt can now get in and help if it wants—though it has problems with its own Copts.

Minister Burg said that the Egyptians would like Israel’s Copts!

Prime Minister Begin asked what the Christians have to complain about?

The President said that this is not at issue.

Prime Minister Begin asked why the Muslims should complain. El Aqsa is there—despite the fact that it is on the Temple Mount, where there are two mosques. Jerusalem is sacred to Jews, Christians, and Moslems. But that is history: in our time, what is Jerusalem? It is the heart of the Israeli nation for 3000 years. The Moslems conquered it. King Abdullah¹⁰ did so, again. He desecrated the Mount of Olives cemetery. He destroyed the Hadassah Hospital and the Hebrew University. Israel rebuilt one city. Should it suggest that Copts in Cairo vote for other governments? It is incomprehensible. It is one city. Teddy Kollek could be reelected for 3 elections more. It will still become a divided city if Israel permits voting for the Administrative Council.

Minister Burg said he would add a footnote. The President had mentioned absentee voting. They live in Jerusalem. It is their capital—though the U.S. does not recognize it. Does the U.S. want to give Israel a mortgage? It is too difficult.

Ambassador Linowitz said that no one here wants to divide Jerusalem. He would try an idea. Suppose that there were elections in the West Bank and Gaza, and the elected officials then selected from Jerusalem 8 or 10 people to serve with them as members.

Prime Minister Begin said that he doesn’t think this would be possible. It is difficult. He speaks about the heart of the Israeli nation. Why play around? It has been the central issue of their lives for 3 millenia. The Eastern part is the real Jerusalem—West Jerusalem is an addition. He is now told that they should vote in the Judea and Samaria Administrative Council—which was Israel’s idea—and destroy Israel’s connection with Jerusalem. How could this be done? For more than 3000 years, it has been a part of their life. It is not dead, it is alive. Their prayers, every day—Dr. Burg prays for return, after 1900 years.

The President said that he is not trying to take the Jews out of East Jerusalem. Under Prime Minister Begin’s definition, people and not land are under jurisdiction. Therefore, we are not talking about a territorial jurisdiction.

Prime Minister Begin said that at Camp David, they talked about Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza district. And in the letters!

The President asked if an Arab in Tel Aviv or Nazareth could vote.

Minister Burg said that there is no absentee vote under Israeli law.

Minister Kubersky said that even Ambassador Evron can’t vote.

Prime Minister Begin said that this was a problem of the constitution—one day it would be amended!

The President said we need to find an alternative to the election process.

Prime Minister Begin said that the President had asked that they think about it; therefore maybe it can be raised again tomorrow. The U.S. should not blame the Israelis’ attitude on Jerusalem.

The President said he was not blaming them for anything. But he doesn’t see any way to proceed with elections.

Prime Minister Begin said that Sadat said there are 700 million Moslems who do not agree. But for Israel, Jerusalem is sacred; it is their life.

The President said he did not want to change that.

Prime Minister Begin said: thank you.

The President said perhaps they could adjourn on a pleasant note! (laughter)

Prime Minister Begin asked when they meet tomorrow.

Ambassador Evron said 10 o’clock.

The President said there is another question. Sadat wants there to be a security committee, to work out the delineation of what is internal security, and what is for the police.

Prime Minister Begin said could he please ask permission. At 5:00 he is to meet with some Senators. The President and he have to speak at 7:30. He will reply tomorrow. Thank you.

The President said: thank you.

(The meeting concluded at 5:10 p.m.).

1. Source: Carter Library, Brzezinski Donated Material, Subject File, Box 37, Serial Xs—(4/15/80–4/30/80). Secret; Sensitive. The meeting took place in the Cabinet Room. The memorandum of conversation was found attached to an April 25 covering memorandum from Hunter to Brzezinski upon which Brzezinski indicated his approval of the memoranda of conversation from Carter’s meetings with Begin. Also, in the covering memorandum, Hunter stated that copies of the memoranda of conversation were to be sent to Linowitz and Moses. (Ibid.) Carter’s handwritten notes related to this meeting are in the Carter Library, Plains File, President’s Personal Foreign Affairs File, Box 2, Israel, 4/79–11/81.
2. No memorandum of conversation for this meeting has been found.
3. No memorandum of conversation for this meeting has been found.
4. Not attached and not found.
5. Reference is to Wladyslaw Sicinski, a seventeenth century Polish-Lithuanian noble popularly credited with introducing to the Polish legislature the use of the liberum veto, a parliamentary device in which a single veto could block legislation already passed.
6. April 16.
7. See Document 331.
8. April 17.
9. See Document 327.
10. See footnote 4, Document 64.