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

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

Cairo, November 13, 1978, 1927Z

24770. Subject: Meeting With Sadat. Ref: A) Cairo 24767,² B) Cairo 24762.³

Summary. Sadat somewhat disturbed about his telecon with President Carter of last night.⁴ He wished confirm to President Carter various positions that he had stated in telecon. Specifically, in absence some kind of specific linkage between first phase of Sinai withdrawal and full autonomy for the Palestinians, at least in Gaza, he cannot agree sign Sinai treaty. Doing so would be a separate peace. Such separate peace would be detrimental to him and to President Carter in area. He insisted that his position is consistent with Camp David Accords and that he is not seeking introduce any new element. If West Bank/Gaza settlement cannot be obtained at this time, linkage should at least include Gaza. He does not at this time wish contact Hussein and Saudis, but plans “punish” them. Hussein, in his view, will not join negotiations until after he sees successful effort in Gaza. If Israelis insist they will not be ready before end of 1979 to establish autonomous self-governing body in West Bank/Gaza, Egypt can wait and delay first interim withdrawal in Sinai by several months in order permit some synchronization. Israelis are seeking to stall in West Bank/Gaza. Exchange of ambassadors, if it takes place without anything having happened in West Bank/Gaza, will be bad. He professed to have been “hurt” by charge that he is now demanding more than Camp David Agreements. He stands by everything he promised, but contended that there are limits to what he can do. He asked that President Carter reconsider various points mentioned in telecon; otherwise he cannot sign treaty. I sought to explain to Sadat what President Carter had in mind in his comments. Sadat asked that I report on our talk so that President Carter can take it into account before sending promised follow-up message. Sadat’s back is up. This is partly a negotiating ploy, but we should not underestimate importance he attaches to meaningful linkage formula. He wants withdrawal in Sinai to begin, but has come to realize need for some sort of synchronization of Sinai and West Bank/Gaza activities if his tarnished Arab credentials are to be maintained. End summary.

1. Met this afternoon with Sadat, at his request, in Ismailia. Meeting lasted hour and a half. VP Mubarak and PriMin Khalil were also present.

2. Sadat recounted his half hour telecon of last night with President Carter. He was somewhat disturbed about some of the things that had been mentioned and said that he had summoned me to confirm to President Carter the positions that he had stated in telecon. He asked that I convey following to President Carter:

A. President Carter had told him of a new American draft,⁵ which I would hand to Sadat. The President had asked that Sadat not make any alterations so that the existing gaps between the parties can be bridged and the text accepted as the final treaty. Sadat said he has no objection, but if there is no specific linkage between the first phase of Sinai withdrawal and full autonomy for the Palestinians, at least in Gaza, he cannot agree. President Carter, according to Sadat, had seemed perplexed at Sadat’s position. The President had noted that there is no legal connection between the Sinai and West Bank/Gaza problems. Sadat claimed that he made it clear that there is such a connection in the Camp David framework document. (PriMin Khalil then cited para B–2 of the “Framework for Peace,” which invites the other parties to proceed simultaneously to negotiate and conclude similar peace treaties with a view to achieving comprehensive peace. The “other parties,” Sadat and Khalil contended, include the Palestinians.) Sadat insisted that, contrary to Israeli charges, he has not sought to introduce any new element. Egypt’s position has always been clear on this point. GOE insists on timetable for Israeli actions re West Bank/Gaza. As President Carter aware, the Israelis want no fixed dates synchronizing Sinai and West Bank/Gaza activities. If such a linkage does not exist in precise form and with dates, Sadat said, it will in effect mean that the Sinai treaty is a separate peace. Such a situation will be exploited by the USSR and the rejectionists, the latter, he noted, are trying to win the Saudis over. He had made it very clear, both in his speech to the Knesset⁶ and in the Camp David tripartite talks, that he will never sign a separate agreement. Unless the Palestinian question is resolved, there cannot be peace.

B. If linkage cannot at this time include the West Bank, Sadat said, it should at least include Gaza. President Carter had noted that a separate Gaza arrangement had not been discussed at Camp David. Sadat claimed that he tried to make clear that in suggesting a linkage timetable in Gaza, he had sought to make a “concession.” He emphasized that Gaza is part of the area seized by the Israelis from Egypt and is also part of the Palestinian question. GOE would prefer joint West Bank/Gaza negotiations, but if there is difficulty in getting West Bank talks underway, a start should be made with Gaza. This idea, he claimed, had commended itself to Callaghan, Schmidt and Giscard. Sadat wanted President Carter to know that if USG and Egypt give way to Israel on this point, i.e., without fixing early dates for negotiations on West Bank/Gaza or at least on Gaza, this will be detrimental both for Sadat and for President Carter in the area. He will not agree to sign a Sinai treaty, he repeatedly stated, without some such linkage. If that is to be the breaking point, so be it. He repeatedly stressed that in suggesting beginning negotiations with Gaza he was not introducing a new element. He was simply seeking to “facilitate” President Carter’s task. The Israelis, as President Carter is fully aware, do not want to go ahead. Bowing to their unwillingness, Sadat reiterated, will be “very grave” for him and for President Carter in the area. It will mean that the Sinai treaty is in effect a separate agreement.

C. President Carter had also asked that Sadat contact King Hussein and the Saudis. Sadat had refused to do so at the present time. He had told President Carter that Prince Fahd had sent him a message, but that he had refused to receive it. He is trying to “punish” Hussein and the Saudis for “putting themselves in the other camp.” He intends to put all kind of “pressure” on Hussein and the Saudis so that they can “regain their reason.”

D. He wished to emphasize to President Carter that Hussein will not join the negotiations, at least not for now. Perhaps after Hussein sees a successful effort in Gaza, he may do so. At the moment, in Sadat’s view, it is simply too profitable for Hussein to stay out. At one and the same time Hussein gets Baghdad Conference money⁷ and asks more questions of the U.S.

E. Sadat said President Carter told him that the Israelis will not be ready before the end of 1979 to establish an autonomous self-governing body in the West Bank/Gaza. He, Sadat, had responded that if the Israelis are not ready, Egypt can wait. He could not envisage Sinai withdrawal steps in the absence of some similar West Bank/Gaza, or at least Gaza, steps. He had sought to explain to President Carter his idea. On the day that the interim withdrawal is completed in Sinai, there should also be full autonomy celebrated in Gaza. This means that one month after signature of a Sinai agreement, Israel and Egypt should sit together to agree on a date for elections, Israeli troop deployment, abolition of military government, etc. President Carter had said the Israelis will not be ready before the end of 1979 for elections. Advance preparations are needed. Sadat reiterated that his response had been that he is not in a hurry to have the first interim withdrawal in Sinai. The linkage issue with West Bank/Gaza should first be settled. If it takes 10 or 11 months instead of the 9 months stipulated in the Sinai framework, this is agreeable. The peace process, he contended, should not be damaged through actions like completing a Sinai agreement without defining what happens when in West Bank/Gaza. President Carter had noted that two years after the establishment of a self-governing authority, the parties will sit down to work out modalities for (as Sadat put it) self-determination. Sadat had responded that in two years time, the USG will be in the midst of presidential elections. The Israelis, he charged, are deliberately seeking to stall in order to ease President Carter’s pressure on them. They are playing for time. Begin was in effect forced to sign the Camp David Agreements. It had never been his intention to do so. Begin is now trying to redress what he failed to achieve at Camp David. If Begin succeeds, this

may indeed help him in the short run, but in the long run it will be against Israeli interests.

F. Sadat also asked that I emphasize to President Carter the concessions that he, Sadat, had made in agreeing to normalization after the first withdrawal. He had done so even though the Egyptian/Israeli framework document says nothing about exchanging ambassadors so soon. He had given President Carter his word regarding ambassadorial exchanges and he will not go back on this. It will be difficult enough to have this happen when part of the Sinai is still occupied by the Israelis, but his people are behind him. However, if this takes place with nothing having happened re West Bank/Gaza, this will be bad.

G. Sadat contended that he had been “hurt” when President Carter said that the Israelis claimed that he, Sadat, is now demanding more than the Camp David Agreements. He insisted that he is not doing so. He had always made it clear, including at Camp David, that a firm linkage was an absolute prerequisite to a Sinai agreement. With some show of testiness, he said that he did not like to be compared to the Israelis.

H. PriMin Khalil interjected that the Israelis also object to a meaningful Egyptian presence in Gaza. Sadat said the Israelis will accept only a nominal Egyptian presence, but Egypt will not agree to this.

I. In conclusion, Sadat asked that I convey the following to “my dear friend, President Carter”: “if you choose these Israeli claims, either in opposing specific linkage between the Sinai treaty and West Bank/Gaza arrangements or on priority of obligations or on other demands such as oil, our entire treaty negotiations will collapse. As a friend of yours and of the United States, and not as President of Egypt, I want to say that we will in that case lose everything that has been built together.” He, Sadat, would not agree. He had, in fact, made most of the concessions, the Israelis had made hardly any. “If the Egyptian and American positions differ on these matters, it will not be my fault,” Sadat said. He wanted President Carter to know that he stands by everything that he promised, but President Carter should also know that there are limits to what Sadat can do. He asked that President Carter reconsider the above points as they had been conveyed to him in last night’s telecon and in what he was telling me; otherwise he cannot sign the treaty.

3. After he had finished, I told Sadat that I was sure that President Carter had no desire to offend him. As he knew, President Carter has worked long and hard to try to bridge the gap between the parties (Sadat readily agreed). In making the points that he did to Sadat, President Carter was acting in good faith. I reminded Sadat that he had specifically told President Carter at Camp David that no linkage was necessary between the two framework documents. Sadat intervened to deny this; he claimed that he had never made any such statements; perhaps there was a misunderstanding based on his agreement to separate the two framework documents. I allowed that perhaps there had been a misunderstanding on this point, but I thought Sadat was asking more than the traffic will bear. There is already reference in the preamble and the accompanying note to the general framework document. The Israelis do not like this and contend that it is contrary to Camp David. Nevertheless, President Carter and the Secretary have pressed hard to retain that degree of linkage. To be specific in terms of timetable, is hardly feasible. Sadat insisted that in view of Israeli statements and actions regarding settlements, some specificity in timetable is needed; otherwise Egypt will find itself with a separate peace on its hands.

4. On separating Gaza, I recalled that when VP Mubarak had first mentioned this idea, I had told him that I thought it was a non-starter. The objective should be to get West Bank/Gaza negotiations underway as soon as feasible. Gaza by itself is hardly enough to serve as a model. Sadat insisted that if a Gaza self-governing body is negotiated, this will put pressure on Hussein to join the negotiations. He was not seeking to separate Gaza from the West Bank, but simply to begin with Gaza if circumstances in the West Bank militate against an early negotiation there. As soon as the West Bank is ready to participate, whatever arrangements are worked out for Gaza could be expanded. I told him that I would report his comments, but reiterated that I thought this was a non-starter.

5. On Hussein and the Saudis, I said I could understand his sense of annoyance, but suggested that it is in GOE’s own interest to take steps to improve relations. Sadat said he is not prepared to do so now. “Let Hussein and the Saudis stew in their own juice awhile.”

6. Sadat had a bad cold and was by then showing signs of weariness. He asked that I get back to Cairo quickly to pass on his message without delay. I undertook to do so.

7. Comment: Sadat’s back is up. Whether this is due to the Baghdad Conference, various Israeli statements made publicly and to the Egyptian delegation suggesting a no-hurry approach on the West Bank/Gaza, the apparent Israeli reneging on a Sinai interim withdrawal timetable, the unresolved West Bank settlements issue, or a combination of all these, I cannot say. I suspect that all these factors have played a role. Of his several points, I believe Sadat’s principal one is achieving some kind of specific linkage between the Sinai treaty and West Bank/Gaza agreement. He insists that it was his understanding throughout the Camp David talks that, even though the two framework documents were separate, they would be linked in terms of implementation. He is concerned at what he believes will be an effort on our part to press him on outstanding issues rather than the Israelis. He fears he is being asked to compromise further on what is already a compromise. He is once again bitter about the Israelis and speaks of Israeli “arrogance.” Some of this is doubtless tactical bargaining, but he is genuinely concerned that he not appear to be concluding a separate peace with Israel. Hence, he is likely to continue to insist on some sort of implementation linkage, including if necessary delaying the initial interim withdrawal arrangements in Sinai by a few months. He wants withdrawal in Sinai to begin, but he has come to realize that some sort of specific synchronization of Sinai and West Bank/Gaza activities is needed if his already tarnished Arab credentials are somehow to be maintained.

Eilts

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Country File, Box 55, Middle East: Peace Talks Between Egypt and Israel, 11–12/78. Secret; Cherokee; Niact Immediate; Nodis. At the top of the telegram, Carter wrote: “This is a very accurate description of Sadat’s (final?) position. We should try to recognize this & work accordingly. J.C.”
2. Telegram 24767 from Cairo, November 13. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, [no film number])
3. Telegram 24762 from Cairo, November 13. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P850070–1499)
4. See Document 133.
5. See Document 131.
6. Sadat addressed the Knesset on November 20, 1977. The text of his speech is in Israel’s Foreign Relations: Selected Documents, 1977–1979, vol. 5, pp. 182–190.
7. According to a November 7 briefing given to Jidda Embassy officials by the Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister, the Baghdad Conference participants voted to extend $1.2 billion in aid to Jordan. See footnote 7, Document 91.