Additional light and information on the Carter-Begin talks was provided by President Carter when he discussed at length the Middle East crisis in a press conference. He said that the issue of Israeli settlements in the territories was not an insurmountable problem and he had discussed it at length with Mr. Begin. On the P.L.0 representation issue, the American view was still that the Palestinians ought to be represented at Geneva after they "forego their commitment presently publicly espoused that Israel should be destroyed". Excerpts from the questions and answers on the Middle East follow:
Question: Mr. President, in your view, did the Israeli embrace of the three settlements on the West Bank diminish in any way the prospects for a negotiated settlement in that part of the world?
A. Yes, I think that any move toward making permanent the settlements in the occupied territories or the establishment of new settlements, obviously increases the difficulty in ultimate peace.
It is not an insurmountable problem. The matter of legalizing existing settlements was a subject that was never discussed by me or Prime Minister Begin. My own concern was with the establishment of new settlements. And I let him know very strongly that this would be a matter that would cause our own government deep concern.
This matter of settlements in the occupied territories has always been characterized by our government, by me, and my predecessors as an illegal action, but 1 think that the establishment of new settlements, or the recognition of existing settlements to be legal both provide obstacles to peace, obstacles which I think we can overcome, by the way.
Q. Mr. President, since you came into office, you have stressed so many times that your policy is to restrain arms sales, that we should not be the arms merchants of the world. Now you are proposing arms to Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran, and there are millions of dollars in the pipeline for arms for Israel - all areas of potential conflict. Why?
A. These proposals are compatible with my new arms sales policy which is to reduce the level of arms sales in each succeeding year.
Many of these agreements are the result of long-standing commitments by our own government to those nations which are allies and friends. We have tried to keep a well balanced approach to the whole question.
The most highly divisive issue recently has been the AWACS sale to Iran. They were contemplating a radar detection system using ground-based and air-launched mechanisms that would have been about twice as expensive. But we are determined to begin a downward trend in the sale of weapons throughout the world. But at the same time, of course, we have to have a pre-eminent consideration - the defense of our own country and an adequate defense capability of our allies.
I would comply with my policy that after this fiscal year, 1977, that in '78 and subsequent years there would be an overall reduction in sales.
I am also trying to get our own allies, France, England and others, and also the Soviet Union, to join us in this effort. And next year under the auspices of the United Nations there will be a world disarmament conference in which we would not only participate but hope to play a leading role. But the policies that I have pursued will be a much greater constraint on arms sales than has been the policy in the past.
Q. I would like to go back to the Mideast, if I may. Some people believe that in your meeting with Mr. Begin, Mr. Begin came away with sort of the best of it. They think you rather embraced him to the extent that our leverage with Israel has now been reduced. Would you comment on that, and would you tell us also what you think now the prospects of peace versus another war in the Mideast?
A. After I met with President Sadat and King Hussein and President Assad, there were major outcries in Israel and among the American Jewish community that I had overly embraced the Arab cause. And I think now that Mr. Begin has visited me, there is a concern we have overly embraced the Israeli cause. Obviously, when these leaders come to see me or when I go to see them, there is an effort to understand one another, to have a basis of comprehension and consultation that can provide hope for the future.
Our position in the Middle East has been very carefully spelled out to the degree of specificity that I choose. We have always made it clear that ultimately the agreement had to be approved and mutually beneficial to the Israelis and also the Arab neighbors as well.
I think that we have a good chance to go to Geneva. There are obstacles still to be resolved. I hope that every leader involved directly in the discussions, the four major countries there, will join with us and the co-chairman of the prospective conference, the Soviet Union, in restraining their statements, not being so adamant on issues and trying to cool down the situation until all can search out common ground, and then hope to minimize the differences.
Secretary Vance will leave this weekend to visit the three Arab nations plus Saudi Arabia, and then come back through Israel as well. When he returns to the United States after a week or so, we will have a clearer picture of the differences that still divide the countries.
I think the major stumbling block at this point is the participation in the negotiations by the Palestinians representatives. Our position has been that they ought to be represented and that we will discuss with them these elements that involve the Palestinians and other refugees at the time they forego their commitment presently publicly espoused that Israel should be destroyed. But until the Palestinian leaders adopt the proposition that Israel is a nation, that it will be a nation permanently, that it has a right to live in peace - until that happens, I see no way that we would advocate participation by them in the peace negotiations.
But these matters are still very fluid. What gives me hope is that I believe that all national leaders with whom I have talked genuinely want to go to Geneva to try to work out permanent peace. That is the primary basis for my optimism. But it is difficult, and past statements by these leaders when they were at war or in the status of prospective war have been very rigid and very adamant and sometimes abusive and filled with hatred and distrust.
We are trying to get them to change from those positions of distrust to one of genuine search for peace. I think it is accurate to say in closing my answer, that both sides now have at least a moderate amount of confidence in us, and I have tried to take a balanced position to enhance that trust in us. If I should ever take a biased position on the part of one of the parties, then the other parties would simply forego any dependence upon us.
So I am very careful in my statements, privately and publicly, to be consistent, and also to be fair.
Q. Could I follow up on that, Mr. President? I believe you said just a moment ago that Mr. Begin gave you no advance hint of this action that he took this week on the settlements. You said that you discussed future settlements. Can you tell us what he said about that? Is he going to encourage new settlements there, and what did you tell him about that?
A. Mr. Begin did not give me any promise about his action on the settlement question. I did describe to him our long-standing position on the settlements which I have already outlined, and told him that this was a major item of potential differences between Israel and the Arab countries and my strong hope that nothing would be done by the Israeli Government in establishing new settlements that might exacerbate an already difficult position.
He listened to me very carefully. He said this was a major political issue in Israel, that in many instances he and his opposition, political parties in Israel, felt the same about it, but that he was certainly aware of our concern. But he did not give me any commitments about what he would do.
And to answer the other part of your question, he did not give me any prior notice that they were going to recognize the legality of the settlements involved.
Q. Mr. President, isn't there a basic conflict between all the talk of progress we heard around here during the Begin visit and at the time he left and the first action that he took upon returning to Israel and the rejection of the idea that we could have any influence over what moves he might make to the West Bank settlements?
A. Well, I think it is not fair to overly criticize Prime Minister Begin. The fact is that under the previous Mapai coalition, the Labor Government, that settlements have been built there, a fairly large number. The number of people involved is quite small, and this is not a new thing. I think it would be a mistake to overemphasize it or to exaggerate the significance of it. We feel that any restraint that Prime Minister Begin might want to exert on this subject would certainly be contributory toward peace.
I think he is in a position now of great strength in Israel. I think that his voice would be honored by the Israeli people. But he, like myself, has run on campaign commitments and I think he is trying to accommodate the interest of peace as best as he can. That doesn't mean that the settlements are right, but I think it would not be proper to castigate him unnecessarily about it because he is continuing policies that have been extant in Israel for a long time. And the Israeli Government has never claimed that these settlements are permanent. What they have done is to say that they are legal at the present time...
Q. Mr. President, at the risk of going back over well-plowed ground, I would like to ask you why it is that you did not ask Mr. Begin what his plans were concerning the existing settlements on the West Bank and more specifically, were you led to believe from your own studies in advance of those talks that he was not going to take this action?
A. I hate to admit it to you, Mr. Schram, but I did not think about raising the subject of recognizing the legality of those settlements. The item that I wanted to discuss with him, and I did, both in the public meeting with the Cabinet members and also privately upstairs in the White House, was the establishment of new settlements. As I pointed out to him, as I have said earlier, that I thought the establishment of new settlements would be a very difficult thing for the public opinion to accept, both here and in the Arab countries, and that if - he pointed out to me that the new settlers as a result of his campaign statements and those of his opponents, were eager to go into the area.
I don't think it is violating any confidence to tell you what I said; that was, that I thought it would be easier for us to accept an increase in the population of existing settlements than it would be to accept the establishment of new settlements. But I did not think about talking to him concerning the granting of legal status to those settlements. It was an oversight which never was discussed.