53. Handwritten Note Prepared by the Ambassador to Israel (Lewis)1

Vance, Mondale, Zbig., Saunders, Lewis, Quandt

Dayan, Barak, Dinitz

Barak reconfirms GOI views on Egyptian proposals re Sept. 15 draft given last night.2

GOI rejects Egyptian “package” language

Vance tables new US language for A–1–c in the Framework. All read carefully. Consultation in Hebrew.


a) Less important point:

1) break out of 1, 2, & 3 of nature of Palestinian participation—highlights it too much—and leaves out vote by all parties.

b) major problem is structural; is 242 the basis for final status of WB/G?


We feel absolutely that there’s a mixture here; peace treaties on 242 w/ individual countries; (not mixed up—two treaties with E[gyptian] role. Clarified in working paper last year (Oct. 5): 242, boundaries, & security arrangements belong to peace treaties—& in this case, should be with Jordan. E[gyptian]s said at Leeds that they don’t want any involvement in Gaza after 5 yrs.

Roles in peace treaty has nothing to do w/ E[gypt]. We must make treaty w/ Jordan based on 242—boundaries, security, forces, etc.

Proposes 2 negot. track, per their paper. Conclusion of future status negot. can be incorporated into the US-Jordan peace treaty.

Re future status—

1) Shouldn’t try now to define it, or set principles about it. Just agree on general framework. Need experience.

2) a good deal of the future status should be implemented before the end of 5th year & then go with final agreement.

Barak: Of course many issues decided in final status would affect Israel-Jordan relationship; “can’t be divided”; Jordan is in both; whatever 4 party agreement reached—including on borders; will end up in Israel-Jordan treaty

[Page 199](At about 12:15 Carter called Dayan out of meeting.)

Vance—we believe you just can’t have an adequate discussion of status, unless borders & security are included.

Barak—put 242 in a general [unclear—chapter?].

Vance—but this is a fundamental point, can it be glossed over.

We’ve accepted “thru talks”; we have to specify what the talks are about.

Barak—using “boundaries” prejudges it—states have borders. (debate.)

Argues that Palestinian issue has to be solved outside 242. It is totally inadequate.

Argues for precedent of US-Israel Working Paper.

CV—That was done re respect to preparation for going to Geneva. Not relevant now. Prob. of Syria isn’t now involved.

Long debate about how to deal with border/boundaries in negotiations.

(Dayan returns at 12:50)

Vance finally proposes new language concocted earlier by Hal for C–1 preamble.

Dayan refuses any wording which implies negot. of borders with Palestinians or Egyptians. (He would accept 242 as [unclear—chapter?] governing all of the H.—but wants to remove all enunciation of p. 2.

Vance insists you can’t divide the final status from issues of boundaries with Jordan.

In response to question from Vance, Dayan & Barak say the “final status” does include all the possible forms of sovereignty, except an independent state.

Adjourn at 1320 for lunch—reconvene at 1500.

  1. Source: Department of State, U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv, Principal Officer Program Files, Lot 85F104, Personal for Ambassador Lewis—Sensitive Notes 1978. No classification marking. See footnote 77, Document 28.
  2. See Document 52.