I am pleased to submit to you these two brief reports—one summarizing the
progress thus far made in the Autonomy Negotiations and the other the
developments in the Egyptian-Israeli normalization process. These
reports reflect my experience in the area over the past
[Page 1378]
year and take into account my most
recent consultations with President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin.2
As you know, during my December visit both leaders agreed that important
progress had been made in the negotiations toward realization of the
objectives of the Camp David Accords and they expressed their confidence
that they would be able fully to fulfill the promise of Camp David.
I have been honored to serve as your representative in these
negotiations.
Attachment
Report Prepared by the President’s Special
Representative for Middle East Peace Negotiations (Linowitz)5
PROGRESS IN THE AUTONOMY
NEGOTIATIONS
Egypt and Israel have over the past months, by virtue of their
commitment and efforts, been able to make considerable progress and
have appreciably narrowed their differences on a wide range of
critical, substantive matters germane to the concept of “full
autonomy” called for by the Camp David Accords.
While significant differences remain on important issues which will
require extensive and intensive negotiations during the weeks and
months ahead, it can fairly be said that a substantial consensus now
exists between the parties on the elements set forth below.
Some of the positions reflected in this report have not yet been
revealed by the parties to one another. Moreover, each of the
parties has emphasized that its position on many of these matters is
expressly conditioned on the completion of a comprehensive autonomy
agreement. Accordingly, it is important to emphasize that one or
both of the parties might deny aspects of this report were it to be
made public. Nevertheless, the existing consensus as reflected below
provides a solid foundation for the completion of a comprehensive
agreement which will establish the transitional autonomy
arrangements contemplated in the Accords.
1.
Election of Self-Governing Authority
The parties would agree that a single body should be elected by the
inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza as the Self-Governing
Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “SGA(AC)”). The SGA(AC)
would select its own officers from among the elected members and
determine its own internal procedures.
Proposals have been made by both parties on the SGA(AC)’s size and structure, and some
progress in narrowing the differences has been made. The parties are
proceeding on the basis that these issues are more appropriately
resolved once the scope and nature of the SGA(AC)’s powers and responsibilities have been more
fully defined.
[Page 1380]
As called for by the Camp David Accords, the SGA(AC) would be established and inaugurated within one
month after it has been elected, at which time the transitional
period of five years would begin. The Israeli military government
and its civilian administration would be withdrawn, to be replaced
by the SGA(AC) as specified in the
“Framework for Peace in the Middle East.” A withdrawal of Israeli
armed forces would then take place and there would be a redeployment
of the remaining Israeli forces into specified security
locations.
The parties are agreed that there must be free elections based on the
principles of peaceful assembly, free expression and secret ballot,
bearing in mind the need to preserve law and order. Free electoral
campaigning will be guaranteed in accordance with the agreement on
election modalities which has now been virtually completed. A system
for apportioning representation will be determined in the course of
the negotiations once the issue of participation by Palestinian
inhabitants of Jerusalem is resolved.
The election would be organized, conducted and supervised by a
Central Electoral Commission, composed of authorized Israeli
civilian personnel and local Palestinian Arabs agreed upon by the
autonomy negotiators, together with other civilians—individual and
institutional—as agreed upon by the negotiators. There will be free
access for international media and for such experts as may be agreed
upon by the parties.
2.
Powers and Responsibilities of the SGA (AC)
The parties thus far in the negotiating process have agreed upon at
least the following areas and functions with respect to which the
SGA (AC) would exercise
responsibility:
Administration of Justice
Agriculture
Budget
Civil Service
Commerce
Culture
Ecology
Education
Finance
Health
Housing and Construction
Industry
Internal Communication and Posts
Internal Transportation
Labor
Local Police and Prisons
Manpower
Municipal Affairs
Nature Preserves and Parks
Public Works
[Page 1381]
Religious Affairs
Refugee Rehabilitation
Social Welfare
Taxation
Tourism
Other areas and functions in which the SGA (AC) would exercise responsibility are under
discussion and negotiation.
The parties anticipate that the SGA
(AC) would have the powers necessary and appropriate to the exercise
of its responsibilities with respect to the defined areas and
functions. These would include the power to formulate policies; to
supervise implementation of the laws and regulations relating to
them; to decide upon the budget and determine the means of financing
it; to employ staff; to sue and be sued; and to enter into
contracts.
Considerable attention has been devoted to defining the nature of the
legislative power appropriate for the SGA (AC) to fulfill its responsibilities. While some
differences remain on this issue, the parties have made significant
progress and both agree that the SGA (AC) must be empowered to promulgate such measures
as are necessary to the proper fulfillment of its responsibilities.
The exercise of power would have to be limited to the defined
responsibilities, could not impinge on issues reserved for
resolution in the final status negotiations, and must be consistent
with the transitional nature of the arrangement and all security
provisions and mechanisms called for by the Framework.
In reaching agreement on the above powers and responsibilities, it
has been understood that coordination between the SGA (AC) and Israel will be necessary
in some specifically defined areas and the parties have agreed that
mechanisms to achieve this end will be worked out in the course of
the negotiations.
In connection with the issue of land, we can anticipate that lawful
private ownership of land in the territories will be protected
during the transitional period, based on the principle of equal
protection under the law. As to public lands, determination of their
ultimate status and uses will be addressed in the final status
negotiations. While extensive negotiations will still be required,
proposals have recently been made by the parties which may offer a
basis for resolving the problem of public land and Israeli
settlements during the transitional period.
As to water, final arrangements will be determined in the course of
the final status negotiations. For the transitional period, Israel
has proposed that new developments and uses of water should be
worked out jointly between the SGA
(AC) and Israel. For its part, Egypt has believed that the SGA (AC) must control its own water
resources but has recognized that development of water resources
which underlie both Israel and the territories will require
substantial coordination between the two. Both parties appear to
favor the establishment of a regional
[Page 1382]
body representing the various peoples of the
area in order to develop and use the water resources for the benefit
of all those peoples.
In connection with security, it is agreed that the inhabitants of
both the territories and Israel require assured internal security
and public order during the transitional period. Accordingly, it is
recognized that the strong local police force, to be constituted by
the SGA (AC), must help provide
such security. Specific arrangements for liaison between the local
police and Israeli security authorities on such security issues, as
called for in the Camp David Framework, will be worked out in the
course of the negotiations and will be implemented in such a way as
to ensure that security is preserved.
To assure external security, and in the absence of Jordanian
participation as envisioned in the Camp David Framework, the
responsibilities for external security set forth in the Framework
must be borne by Israel. The precise arrangements remain to be
specified and further discussion will be required on how to enable
Israel to fulfill fully its responsibilities while minimizing the
impact on the inhabitants.
The parties plan the establishment of a Continuing Committee with
Egypt, Israel and the SGA (AC) as
members (Jordan has, of course, the option of joining under the
provisions of the Framework), and with the United States also
invited to participate. The Committee would decide by agreement on
the modalities of admission of persons displaced in 1967, together
with measures necessary to prevent disruption and disorder. The
Committee would also deal with other matters of common concern, such
as economic cooperation. The Committee would operate on the basis of
unanimity unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
As you know so well, troublesome problems still remain to be resolved
and difficult negotiations still lie ahead. It is significant,
however, that on December 18, 1980, President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin together issued a statement
reaffirming their commitment to the Camp David peace process as “the
only viable path toward comprehensive peace in the Middle East
today.”
With the determined efforts of both parties and with continued active
participation on the part of the United States, I firmly believe
that the negotiations can be successfully concluded.
Respectfully submitted,
Sol M.
Linowitz6
Personal Representative of the President for
the Middle East Peace Negotiations
Attachment
Report Prepared by the President’s Special
Representative for Middle East Peace Negotiations (Linowitz)7
PROGRESS IN EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI
NORMALIZATION ARRANGEMENTS
Since the signing of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty and the exchange
of instruments of ratification on April 25, 1979, Israel has
completed on schedule its withdrawal from the Sinai to the interim
line specified in the Treaty, including turning over to Egypt the
Sinai oil fields. Similarly, Egypt has scrupulously adhered to its
commitments under the Treaty.
After the parties established normal and friendly relations on
January 25, 1980, they exchanged resident Ambassadors one month
later and then began negotiations on the normalization measures
called for in the Treaty. In March 1980, they signed three major
agreements for cultural relations, civil aviation, and trade and
commerce. In addition, the Israelis and Egyptians concluded five
memoranda of understanding covering communications and postal
services, tourism, agriculture, land and sea transport, and
arrangements for the travel of Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt.
Flights between Israel and Egypt began immediately and are now being
expanded to six times a week. Telephone and postal links have been
established between the countries, and the newspapers and
periodicals of one appear in the streets of the other.
Tourists are free to travel from one country to the other and the
number of official delegations exchanging visits has been
increasing. Teams have been exchanged by the respective Ministries
of Agriculture, and they are coordinating their activities to
prevent the spread of animal diseases such as Rift Valley fever.
Israeli agricultural products including eggs, poultry, seeds and
agricultural machinery are beginning to appear in Egyptian markets
and an agreement has been reached to exchange agricultural and
industrial exhibits to promote trade. President Sadat has recently agreed to the
overland transit of goods through El-Arish to supplement the
previously agreed access by vessels of each country to the ports of
the other.
[Page 1384]
Following President Navon’s
state visit to Cairo in October, 1980, Egypt and Israel decided to
establish a “peace task force” drawn primarily from the private
sector to improve mutual understanding. The two countries are now
considering proposals to open consulates and cultural centers to
support their diplomatic missions.
Both Egypt and Israel have continued to monitor the progress of the
normalization of relations, and when problems have developed they
have quickly resolved the problems through normal diplomatic
channels.
This record of achievement and progress stands out as a dramatic
example to all the countries and peoples of the Middle East of the
benefits of genuine peace.
Respectfully submitted,
Sol M.
Linowitz8
Personal Representative of the President for
the Middle East Peace Negotiations
