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

45. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Camp David, September 12, 1978, 1:45–3:30 p.m.

PARTICIPANTS

• American Ambassador Samuel Lewis
• Israeli Foreign Minister Dayan

SUBJECT

• Dayan’s Unhappiness with Secretary’s Response

As we were leaving the dining area, Foreign Minister Dayan took me aside in some agitation. He said he wanted me to remember today’s date very carefully, since he thought history would show that a conversation² he had just had with Secretary Vance over lunch was the point at which the chance for a peace agreement had been lost and the seeds of the next Arab-Israeli war had been planted. He said he had made a proposal to the Secretary and that he was extremely sorry the Secretary had rejected it so quickly, “But since he has, I guess there is nothing more to be done and we will just have to live with the consequences.”

I took Dayan aside for more elucidation. He went over, at some length, his conclusion that there were at least three insoluble issues which precluded any chance of Israeli agreement on an overall framework: “The inadmissibility of the acquisition language, the demand for removal of Sinai settlements, and insistence on a total freeze on West Bank settlements.” He said there might be a number of other points, but he believed that, based on what he felt now, the other hurdles could have been surmounted if we had not been adamant on these.

He said that in this situation he believed strongly that it was a tragedy not to conclude at least an agreement on how to organize the West Bank and Gaza for the transition period and “to get on with establishing the self-rule regime.” This, he said, was now well within reach; the other two major subjects under discussion, a broad set of principles applicable to everything and the Sinai problem, did not seem to be within reach, blocked by the inadmissibility language, settlements removal, and Sadat’s insistence on removal of all airfields within three years. He had, therefore, suggested to Vance that we find a way to separate out the agreement on the West Bank and Gaza so as at least to leave Camp David with that as an achievement. He was sorry that Vance had replied that this was, in his view, impossible.

There then ensued a lengthy discussion about all of these subjects in which Dayan revealed, among other things, that he had, with great difficulty, finally persuaded Begin to accept language on the Palestinian question and on 242, including “in all its aspects” and “in all of its parts,” which Begin had resisted for months. He said it was totally impossible to move him on settlements at this juncture, and Begin had now decided to take the whole issue back to the Knesset where he (and Dayan) were quite certain an overwhelming majority of members would refuse to sanction removal. He said that Begin and he were both now planning to leave Camp David no later than Wednesday night, September 13, as was Barak—who in any event had to be back in Israel Thursday night in order to be sworn-in as a justice of the Supreme Court. Dayan seemed convinced that there was little left now to do but close out the conference.

I urged Dayan not to jump to conclusions and, above all, not to plan to leave or to permit Barak to leave before Friday, at the earliest. I reviewed the anticipated schedule for the next 48 hours with him and said that they should wait to see the next draft of our paper, which would be based on their reactions, as well as the Egyptian reactions, to our first draft. I also urged him to think long and hard about some way that the “inadmissibility” language could be incorporated into the Preamble in a form which Begin might accept. I said that all of us understood the depth of feeling about the settlements question, and that we should both continue to seek formulas by which it could be handled in this framework, since it would be tragic to be able to agree on most other issues but find no way of dealing with this question.

After lengthy debate, in which Dayan’s mood gradually improved, he finally agreed to seek ways in which the “inadmissibility” language might be utilized, while asking me to do everything possible (a) to look for a way to deal with the Sinai settlements issue in this paper which put off to the period of detailed negotiation its eventual resolution, and (b) to persuade the Secretary to reconsider his response to Dayan’s idea of an ultimate fallback position for Camp David centered on agreement with regard to the West Bank and Gaza procedures and prospects. In this connection, he stressed that the difficult language of general applicability is intended to apply ultimately to peace treaties, and there are no peace treaties anticipated for the West Bank and Gaza until the five years have elapsed. He therefore believes it would be sad to hang up over general language for this area when agreement on the actual procedures may be within reach.

With regard to joint patrolling with Egyptians and Jordanians, Dayan said again that he would not rule out joint Egyptian-Israeli patrols on the narrow 3-mile international border between the Gaza Strip and Sinai. He very strongly rejected any possibility of involvement by Egyptian police or military with the Gaza police, but would accept Jordanian police advisers in Gaza, if needed. He was negative about joint coastal patrolling of the Gaza Strip, but did not absolutely rule it out. What came through most clearly was Israeli determination not to have Egyptian military involvement inside Gaza ever again. Jordanian involvement would be acceptable, and would be consistent with the Israeli desire to join the Gaza to the West Bank for future administrative purposes.

Dayan talked at some length during our conversation about Sadat’s recently reported rejection of UN forces along the buffer zone between Israel and the Sinai. He said that, contrary to what they had understood about Sadat’s views earlier, they now were told that Egyptian civilians would have to man the air bases at Sharm, Etzion, and Etam. He said he could not see any way in which this would be acceptable, while on the other hand a UN force could perhaps operate or administer all three airports for civilian use, if the US continued unable [or] unwilling to take over Etam. Etzion, for example, would be a very useful civilian airport for Eilat, assuming freedom of movement back and forth across the border between Eilat and Etzion; but this arrangement would only be feasible if it were under UN control and not available overnight for Egyptian military to re-occupy it, as would be the case if Egyptian civilians were administering it or the other airports. The same reasoning ran to the use of the port facilities at Sharm.

(Defense Minister Weizman had made some of the same points to Secretary Vance on September 11³ with regard to the airfields, although he had stressed the great desirability of retraining Etzion for a much longer period for Israeli military use. If it had to be given up for military purposes, he said it would be vital for Israel to obtain a promise in the agreement to use the air space over the buffer zone along the frontier for training purposes. Air space over the Negev was already in short supply, and if Etzion were relocated across the frontier it would be essential to retain use of some Sinai air space to make the new air base viable.)

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Middle East, Subject File, Box 7, Camp David: 9/9–17/78. Secret; Nodis. Drafted by Lewis. The meeting took place in Laurel Lodge.
2. See footnote 43, Document 28.
3. See Document 43.