The Foreign Minister of Egypt arrived in Israel on 15 January for the meeting of the Political Committee. Upon his arrival he stated that there could be no peace as long as Israel occupies Arab territories and denies the rights of the Palestinians. Secretary of State Vance arrived on the 16th and the talks opened in Jerusalem on 17 January. Before the formal opening, Foreign Minister Dayan gave a press conference in which he explained the agenda and the procedure to be followed. He also answered questions about Israel's position. Excerpts:
Mr. Dayan: I just wanted to inform you in brief about the way that we want to go on with the meetings of the political committee. We have agreed as you know about the agenda, which you all know of it. Another question is how to deal and how to negotiate over the different subjects. The last subject. The "C". The elements for Peace Treaties is more of a technical nature rather than a political one, while the first two - the first one dealing with the declaration of the Principles for Peace Treaties and the principal problem of the Palestinian Arabs are more of a political nature. So we want to start with the first one and this morning those parties put on the table their proposals for the declaration of the Principles for Peace Treaties. I don't know whether you got them from the Egyptian delegation and from ours. If you haven't I am very happy so it means that the committee at least has something which they do not share with the press yet: but it would be of no surprise to you, that of course, the papers are not identical. And you can guess that a main point on which we do not agree has got to do with the withdrawal from all the territories, and everything to do with that as a matter of principle. And when it comes to the Palestinian problem, with the rights for self-determination, independent state and anything connected with it, now, I'm sure there is nothing new about it, but a real problem is how to deal with it. What we are doing is that we decided to have the next meeting tomorrow afternoon at 3.00 in order to give the parties an opportunity, each one of them, to study the other party's paper and to see what are probably identical in both of them, what are not too far so that we may reach an agreement relatively easily through the negotiation, with some change of some word and so on, and what are really representing the main gaps over which we have to negotiate, and probably, to look for new formulas - something like that.
When I say "We" I mean in this concern also the representatives of the United States of America. They wanted too to have time at their disposal to study the papers and to see what they can do about it. So the time is not really wasted though there are no meetings. There'll probably be informal talks and as a matter of fact, today in the late afternoon, some of our people would be meeting with some of the Egyptian delegation in order to start working by comparing the two papers concerning the declaration of principles for Peace Treaties. Of course, if any delegates or parties want to meet informally with the other during the time between today's and tomorrow's session, then we are all available for that. That's what I really wanted to say as an opening, and to stress once again, the thing that we said before and the thing that I have to repeat again. Though we have presented our proposals, we have been saying right from the beginning that everything is negotiable and it's absolutely the right of every party, each party to put their own proposals and we will be discussing the other party's proposal even if we do not agree with it and will try not only to listen to it, but to see whether we can compromise, come close whatever should be done to reach an agreement.
The only thing that we do not really accept is a kind of an ultimatum of take it or leave it. Must do that - but what we do accept willingly is that each party, and in this respect the Egyptian delegates, should have absolutely a free hand in submitting their proposal about everything, about the settlements, about withdrawal, about any part and any subject. And we would negotiate over their proposals just as we would expect them to negotiate over ours, and we would try to see whether we can reach an agreement, some kind of a compromise over the different proposals. Thank you very much.
Q. Mr. Foreign Minister, I wonder if you could tell us if the question of Israeli settlements within the Sinai is dealt with in either the Egyptian or the Israeli text or draft of the agreement on principles that was offered this morning. And if it is not, I wonder if you can tell us where it will be dealt with in this current stage of negotiations and how important or what role you think it will play here in Jerusalem.
Dayan. It is not mentioned in either of the papers. If I may disclose something of the recent history of the proposals for the agenda, at a certain point we did propose that the subject of the Israeli civilians - and by that we meant also the Israeli settlements in Sinai would be dealt with on the agenda of the political committee. But that was not accepted by the Egyptian delegation so we dropped it and it is not there. It may be, that indirectly, it will be referred to within the principles of withdrawal from territories. I suppose so - but not specifically. It is not mentioned, though we're ready to discuss it specifically on the agenda. But once the Egyptians did not accept it, so it is not on the agenda here. Now whether that would be discussed or not in Cairo with the military committee I don't know, and I personally have no objection that it would be discussed further, if the Egyptian and Israeli delegation there find it appropriate. But here it is not on the agenda and directly I don't think it will be discussed here.
Q. May I follow that question? I'd like to ask what you can tell us about why the Egyptians did not want to discuss it here.
Dayan. Well, I asked my colleague the Egyptian Foreign Minister to participate with me in this press conference and he preferred to do it in a few days' time and I think it would be appropriate for you to ask him about it. I really don't think that it would be fair for me to try to explain the Egyptian position.
Q. This morning the Egyptian Foreign Minister said there will be no real peace in Palestine for the House of Israel unless there will be an equal house there for the Palestinian People. Would you care, Mr. Dayan, to tell us if you agree or disagree with this statement and why?
Dayan. I think that we should go into this question and not just within the frame of the wording, nice as it is, but to go into the substance. Now we have presented our proposal about a self-rule or self-administration and we don't think that a small group, a fraction of a nation should have an independent state, this is our attitude, but if the Egyptian delegation or eventually if the Jordanian, or the representative of the Palestinian Arabs, would be participating in this meeting and they would have different views about it, and they want to bring it, like the Egyptians now, to the table, and to argue over it, and to propose a different proposal, we shall discuss it of course, and we shall negotiate over it, we shall examine it and see what exactly is meant by that.
Let me just say that within the Arab world that there are also some different views about it, whether the Palestinian Arabs here should be linked with Jordan or whether they should have an independent state and there are other proposals too. So just the phrase that there will be no peace in the Middle East unless the Palestinian Arabs will have a House like Israel is a nice phrase. But if the Egyptians have this attitude and this concept, let's sit down and discuss it, what exactly should take place in the Gaza Strip, in Judea and Samaria and whether they should be states, independent of what the role and rights of the Israelis should be in these phases, whether the Israeli forces can stay or should be withdrawn from this area, whether the Israelis or the Jews should have the rights to have Israeli settlements there or not, not just a general phrase,
Q. Mr. Foreign Minister, there are reports that the Americans will be proposing that your concept of self-rule on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip be viewed as an interim arrangement leading ultimately to greater self-determination for the Palestinian Arabs. Do you see this American formula as a possible way out of the impasse which has developed over the future of the West Bank and the Palestinian question?
Dayan. I just read about it in the press but I haven't heard anything about it yet from the American representative. I have been with Secretary Vance last night and this morning and I haven't heard anything about it from him. Of course, whenever the Americans submit their proposal we shall study it carefully and discuss it with them and the other parties. But as for the moment, nothing like this proposal has been presented to us.
Q. If that were to be proposed, Mr. Dayan, would you view it favorably?
Dayan. Do you really think that I should discuss it with you before the United States of America with their representative submit it to us, that I should take it from you that they are going to do it. They speak good English and they haven't presented anything yet.
Q. Mr. Dayan, would you like your Prime Minister Mr. Begin rather resign than agree to give up the Israeli settlements in Sinai?
Dayan. I wouldn't like him to resign. I would like to keep my position and I think that we are in our position and the Prime Minister is in his position to fight for our position and not for resigning it. As long as you have a majority and the support of the House and the Cabinet I think that he should fight - I mean in a political way - for the objective that he is standing for.
Q. Mr. Foreign Minister, this morning you stated that peace can be achieved through concessions and compromise and just now you said that you do not agree to withdrawal whether full or partial and you don't agree to the rights of the Palestinians for self-determination. Can you tell us what kind of compromise you are ready to offer for the sake of peace?
Dayan. This is not exactly an exact quotation of what I have just said. I said that we have our proposals which we have presented in writing to the other party that we are ready and I repeat that we are ready, to negotiate, to discuss, to study and to see whether we can reach an agreement along the other party's proposals too. So we do not say that just because we have presented certain proposals, because of that we do not want to enter into negotiations over the other party's proposals. On the contrary, we do want, and that is really the whole object of negotiation, to sit down with other parties to study their proposals and to see whether we can come to an agreement. What I said this morning is that I believe the object of negotiation is to sit down with other parties to study their proposals and to see whether we can come to an agreement. What I said this morning is that I believe that this is not a substitute for war. But peace is an alternative for war and basically speaking is based on a compromise and concession and this is our position as far as we are concerned. We are ready for compromises and for concessions and to meet the other party's proposal, we want to sit down with them.
Q. Mr. Foreign Minister, can you give an appraisal of the Egyptian Foreign Minister's opening statement this morning in the light of your own declaration that a peace settlement is an alternative and not a substitute for war, and in the negotiations behind closed doors are there any signs of Egyptian readiness to reach peace by concession, compromise and mutual agreement, to quote your own words.
Dayan. I really honestly think that it is too early to come to a conclusion about that. Now, the situation just now is that those parties have presented their proposals. Of course what we have now on the table are two different proposals, and the question whether the parties, the Israelis and the Egyptian one, are ready to modify their proposal, or their position would be found only after we can eliminate the differences and start negotiating over the differences.
Now only 2 hours ago we got their paper and they got ours and we decided that tomorrow at 3:00 we shall meet again in order to see whether we can reach or at least make some progress towards reaching an agreement over the differences. But just now what we know is that the two papers of course are not identical and they can't be identical. There are two different proposals there.
Q. Mr. Minister, in recent times it seems that Egypt would agree on the fact of delivering up to Arab countries a sort of supervision for the so-called Holy Places for the Moslem People. In the frame of your recent visit to His Holiness Pope Paul VI, would you please kindly tell us what do they mean when they say including Jerusalem and what would be the destiny of the Holy Places according to the Egyptian papers, because you are the only person who's gone through it. Thank you.
Dayan. It's a good question - I don't mean your question is a good question. I think that the question about Jerusalem is a so-called good question and I have been asking it too. Not the first man, but some of our colleagues, because the way that we heard it, more from King Hussein rather than from the Egyptian delegation. And actually the Egyptian delegation speaks here for the Palestinian Arabs and for the Jordanians. So the position of King Hussein is that what he says is that the old line and the sovereignty of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem should go back to Jordan.
Now that physically means that Mt. Scopus, the Hebrew University, the Hadassah Hospital, that the Jewish Quarter in the Old City, the Wailing Wall, the Mt. of Olives, all this should go to the Jordanian sovereignty because we lost it in the war of '48, while we managed to take it back in the war of '67. Now, whether they really mean it - that's what they say and I believe they mean it. They know the peace - they are not foreigners there, and they can go around but if they really do mean it that's because they managed by force to take the Jewish Quarter and Old Jerusalem and Mt. Scopus with the Hebrew University and with Hadassah Hospital and it turned to be under their control for 10 years between '48 and '67 - or 20 years, between '48 and '67. Therefore it is on Arab soil and now the Hebrew University and Hadassah and the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem should go to Jordan - even just the names of the places, like the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, the Wailing Wall - speak for themselves.
Whether this is really meant by 'just solution' and this would be the only solution that would provide peace in the Middle East is a great question. That's what I meant by saying it is a good question. What really do they mean by that.
Q. Can you tell us please if the Egyptian working paper is more strongly worded that the Egyptian Foreign Minister's statement?
Dayan. The Egyptian Foreign Minister's? Stronger, let me say something about it. I cannot quote the Egyptian paper presented to us this morning, but it's not by far different from their position that was explained to us in Ismailiya and I can refer to what took place in Ismailiya. Of course this was not that confidential, so for instance the philosophy, the concept, is that Israel should go back from all the territories, including the Golan Heights, and that there should be the rights for the Palestinians not only to have self-determination but if they so decide to have a Palestinian State. Now. I really am asking, questioning, whether really when President Sadat says that we should rely with our security upon him, upon President Sadat, and I'm sure that he says it honestly and he believes so - can he assume responsibility for the Golan Heights and for the attitude of the Syrians under the present circumstances. And to tell us especially in a very very strong wording that we have to get off the Golan Heights without worrying about our security and the future and that he, President Sadat, for whatever President Assad thinks of him and speaks of him that he can assume responsibility in Cairo for Israel, for our settlements in the northern part of Israel, if we get off the Golan Heights. And just talking about a Palestinian State. I am not questioning the right of people to take part and to decide over their future, but this is not the only question.
Question: Now if there is an independent state here in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and that would be run by the PLO with their concept about Israel, that they haven't changed their covenant, and with the resolution of the last Tripoli conference, can President Sadat, who asked very firmly and in very strong wording for the rights of the Palestinian Arabs for self-determination which might be a Palestinian State. Can he or anyone assure us what attitude the future Palestinian State run by the PLO would take against Israel? So what I can say is only about the Ismailiya talks and about the paper here that it is not by far different from the Ismailiya position presented to us by the Egyptians and some of the questions that we want to discuss with our Egyptian colleagues. But we do accept their papers as representing their position that should be discussed and dealt with just like our paper-on equal footing during the meeting, and that is what a political committee is for, to discuss all the proposals, theirs and ours, whatever we think about our question.
Q. Mr. Dayan, how can you explain the apparent contradiction between first offering to return all of Sinai to Egyptian sovereignty, withdrawing the Israeli troops and then wanting to keep Israeli settlements in Sinai as well as access to Israeli air fields there?
Dayan. When we presented our plan, our concept about the role of Sinai within a Peace Treaty, it was not divided into parts. It was a comprehensive plan in its entirety and there it was compared with a buffer zone, with a demilitarized zone, with Israeli settlements staying where they are with the U.N. forces, the U.N. flag and control over a certain area, with what should take place in Sharm El-Sheikh and so on. And the way that we took it and still take it is that this plan we thought should be acceptable by the Egyptians that included the sovereignty of the Egyptians but not with excluding and removing the Israeli settlements or not allowing Israeli civilians to stay in Sharm. EI-Sheikh and with some arrangements about the military air fields and so on. This is a concept that you can take it or you can try something else that was really advocated and recommended by the Israeli Government all through the years was that we should not go back to the old lines, and that that area which includes now the Israeli settlements and Sharm El-Sheikh all along the international boundary from Sharm El-Sheikh up to the Mediterranean should change hands and become part of the Israeli sovereignty. So that was the old concept and what we tried after the bold move of Sadat and his special position now, to say maybe we would agree and that might satisfy our security needs to do with even less than what we wanted in the past. Security Council Resolution 242 does not call upon us to go all the way back from the territories. This interpretation is accepted by the United States of America too, that 242 does not mean that Israel has to go from these territories and that we have to provide Israel with secure boundaries and that change in the international permanent borders can take place.
Either we insist on our interpretation of 242 and ask for changes in the international boundaries about the sovereignty or, if we try to do something like that, less than that. Then this is based on the agreement of the other party, of the Egyptians that they would agree to special arrangements and agreement if they are sovereign over the Sinai then by being the sovereign they have to agree to make an agreement about what will take place there. That they would agree that in certain spots there should be special arrangements by their agreement without changing it in the international boundaries. So I am not saying here that they have to make a choice either one or number two that's all. They can propose other arrangements or other solutions whatever they propose. Even their present proposal that there would be a full complete withdrawal of the Israeli civilians and military, it's their right, and we shall negotiate over it. But answering your question, how can we propose it. What I am saying is we could have proposed what Mrs. Meir and Mr. Rabin and Eshkol's Governments - and in some of them I served - and that was the traditional Israeli concept that we should not go back to the old lines and that was specifically said about the Sinai boundary that the area including Sharm EI-Sheikh up to the Mediterranean will change hands and become part of Israel. Does anyone think that President Sadat would have preferred that to what we have just suggested now? Would that be easier for him to accept or more acceptable to him? I doubt it.
Q. Mr. Vance said this morning that the solution of the Palestine problem required Palestinians to participate in determining their own future. In specific terms what do you see by participation in determining their future and therefore their sovereignty.
Dayan. We have agreed and even initiated - and I would like everybody to remember it. There are a lot of things about me that I do not insist should be remembered and they are remembered. But, when we negotiated with the representative of the United States of America in New York, the so-called working paper, it was Geneva Peace Conference. It was our suggestion that, negotiating over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This negotiation, the working group for that should include the representatives of the Palestinian Arabs, even though they are not mentioned in Resolution 242. Nothing is said in 242 about the Palestinian Arabs. They are not a party there. But we said that although all the parties accepted that the basis of the negotiations for the Geneva Peace Conference should be Resolution 242 and 338, and in spite of the fact that the Palestinian Arabs are not mentioned there. We suggest, we Israelis suggest that the working group discussing the issues of the West Bank and Gaza should include the parties which are Egypt, Jordan, Israel and representatives of the Palestinian Arabs. This formula was endorsed in Ismailiya too. That is to say that if Jordan and the representatives of the Arabs residing in this area, would participate here or in the Cairo Conference that they should be included in the party negotiating about the issues. If you want to call it the future ... the solving ... the solution, of the Palestinian Arabs and they should be in that working group it should not be done without them. If they care to come and sit down there, we can't force them. If they don't want to come, if they want to stay out then we have to submit our own proposal, but that is what is meant by that.
Q. Would Israel be willing to consider adjustments of its Southern borders in exchange for adjustments of the Northern Sinai?
Dayan. We haven't proposed anything like that and we would consider any proposal including such a one. If this would be proposed by the Egyptians, we would consider all proposals submitted by the Egyptians. We have not submitted such a proposal and I don't think that we shall. But if Pres. Sadat or the, Egyptian delegation would come out with such a proposal we shall discuss it like we would discuss any other proposal suggested by them.