255. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State1
7675. Subject: Cabinet Reaches Decision on Answer to the “American Questions.”
[Page 1157]1. Foreign Minister Dayan telephoned me at 1530 June 18 with news of the statement just approved by the Israeli Cabinet in response to the two questions posed to him by Secretary Vance in Washington. Dayan said the approved formulation was that proposed by Begin; based closely on Dayan’s earlier draft. The four DMC Ministers put forward their own proposal, similar according to Dayan to Weizman’s earlier draft in its specific reference to a decision after five years on the permanent “status of the area”. “Off the record” (please protect), Dayan said that all other Cabinet members except Weizman and the DMC supported Begin’s proposal. Weizman, he said, was very angry and supported neither the Begin nor the DMC draft. (Two dyspeptic sentences in a subsequent phone call from Weizman amply confirmed Dayan’s version.)
2. As will be apparent from text below, GOI statement is tortured linguistically. This obviously reflects Begin’s refusal to make explicit reference to “status of the territory”, per se. Dayan insists, however, that key phrase in para II: “the nature of the future relations between the parties will be considered and agreed upon at the suggestion of any of the parties.”, is in fact functional equivalent for our suggested answer to question no. 1. Though words “permanent” or “definitive” do not appear, Dayan said that Cabinet decision means the “permanent nature of the relationship among Israel, the West Bank/Gaza, and Jordan” would be decided at the end of five years. He said the basic disagreement with our formulation, language aside, is that the GOI proposes that negotiations to that end begin only after five years has elapsed, not during the five year period.
3. Dayan also stressed that GOI reference in para II to “the parties” should be interpreted as follows: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Palestinian Arabs are the appropriate parties for the peace negotiations, or at minimum Egypt and Israel. However, Egypt would not rpt not be an appropriate party to “permanent relationship” governing West Bank and Gaza (i.e. no rpt no Egyptian long-term involvement in those areas).
4. I will see Dayan Monday morning, June 19, to obtain further interpretation of very carefully crafted Cabinet decision. We should be certain we have fuller understanding before making any public comments, since some of what Dayan told me remained obsucre. Urge that Department await my fuller report on Monday meeting before responding to inevitable press questions.2 Knesset will debate Cabinet decisions Monday evening, and Dayan will speak for the government.
5. Text of Cabinet decision, as relayed by Dayan follows:
[Page 1158]Section I. The GOI considers it vital to continue the peace making process between Israel and its neighbors.
Section II. The GOI agrees that five years after the application of the administrative autonomy in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza district, which will come into force upon the establishment of peace, the nature of the future relations between the parties will be considered and agreed upon at the suggestion of any of the parties.
Section III. For the purpose of reaching an agreement, the parties will conduct negotiations between them, with the participation of representatives of the residents of Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza district as elected in accordance with the administrative autonomy.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780257–0275. Confidential; Niact Immediate; Exdis. Also sent niact immediate to Jerusalem. Sent immediate for information to the White House and Cairo. Sent for information to Amman.↩
- In telegram 7726 from Tel Aviv, June 19, Lewis reported Dayan’s extensive interpretation of the Cabinet decision. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840157–2300)↩