On the eve of the talks with Secretary Vance, Mr. Dayan spelled out the Israeli position which was: no PLO participation in Geneva in any way, no talks with a united Arab delegation and peace treaties instead of interim arrangements. Israel rejects the return to the 1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state. As for Sinai, Israel would be willing to withdraw in the framework of peace to lines that will give it security. Israel is not prepared to have any foreign rule in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel will attend the proposed talks without any prior conditions or commitments. Following are excerpts from the questions and answers in English:
Mr. Dayan: I can't speak for the PLO, nor for the Americans. So I can't say a word about the American attitude towards the PLO or the PLO undertaking, or promises about their attitude toward 242. What I can say - on our behalf, is that even if the PLO will state that they do accept the 242, and even if they say that they accept it without any reservations, it will not mean that we accept the PLO as partners for negotiations for peace, or as participants in the Geneva Peace Conference.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we are dealing with states, and we are dealing with the Geneva Peace Conference, which it is very clearly stated that it would be negotiated between states, countries and not parties, and the countries are Jordan, speaking for the Palestinians - we do object to Arab Palestinians, not the PLO, but Arab Palestinians, to participate with the Jordanian delegation. But we do not see any reason to discuss or to negotiate with any party, which is not a state, to say nothing about the PLO, and especially with the PLO of which objective is to destroy Israel.
So that's why not.
Q. If I understand correctly what you said before - you said that Israel would not rule out separate negotiations with sovereign states. What's the purpose of calling for the conference as soon as possible?
What is the purpose of calling for a conference if you say you want to negotiate with each state separately?
A. Why not, we think that like it was done in the first stage of the Geneva Peace Conference... there were negotiations in Kilometre 101 with the Egyptians and there were negotiations with the Syrians - and we want to sign a peace treaty with each country. And you can't do it with one mission speaking on behalf of all of the Arab countries. Of course they can consult with one another, but once everybody agrees that the objective of the peace conference is to sign a peace treaty - with the Arab countries, you must do it individually with each country.
Q. Does that mean then that your concept of a renewed Geneva Peace Conference will be like the previous one - a pretty non-formal meeting?
A. No, no, not at all. We want to negotiate not only the formal and the final meeting there - and we are ready to negotiate in Geneva, we are ready to negotiate in any other place but what I'm saying is that ultimately, the signing of the negotiations- and the signing, the conducting of a peace treaty, must be done between Israel and each country. You cannot do it with - between Israel and all the Arab countries together.
Q. Mr. Minister how would you assess the progress now to reconvene the Geneva Peace Conference this year?
A. Well that I think we shall know better when the talks shall end in just one day's time tomorrow.
Q. Mr. Minister, would Israel withdraw from any or all of the West Bank and Gaza in the context of an overall settlement?
A. Well I hope not, and our attitude is and our position is and I'm saying this is our position, and we are ready to negotiate with different positions - if the Arab's come forward with different positions, we shall negotiate with it. There are no prior conditions either to the actual negotiations or the final conclusions. Once we sit down and negotiate with them, we might come to a different conclusion - decision. Just now, if you ask me about our position, before the meeting, before the negotiations started - our position is that we should not withdraw from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But this is our position, and this is not a condition for the other parties to enter into negotiations. They can come forward with their own positions, including getting back the eastern part of Jerusalem. Whatever they want to ask along, according to the 242 Resolution and we shall negotiate with them, over their proposals, but we will come forward with our position, which I stated before.
Q. Would your government be willing to agree, before a Geneva Conference, to a statement on principle which outlines the general principles to be decided on at a conference along the lines that President Carter has set forward - the withdrawal from territories occupied in '67, the establishment of a Palestinian entity in return for a peace for Israel.
A. I think that the principles which were stated in the 242 Resolution and the 338 Resolution are sufficient as the starting line for the negotiation. And I don't think that we have to go any farther before the negotiating starts.
Q. If you were asked to do so, would you be willing to consider doing so?
A. Well it depends what kind of principles. For instance if the principle would be that there should be a full peace treaty with diplomatic relationships, etc. - we shall accept it.
What I heard from Secretary Vance, and I don't think there is any violation of the agreement between our Foreign Minister in Washington or the Prime Minister's visit in Washington.
I don't think that there is any contradiction or violation of this agreement.
As far as the Geneva Peace Conference is considered, I don't think that the PLO or any other group - Palestinians or anyone should be a participant there. I think that we should negotiate there only with states, with governments, and as long as Jordan is representing the eastern line, then we have Egypt and Jordan and Syria - and if Lebanon wants to join it, and we can conclude peace with Lebanon, then I think that would be acceptable.
The question is what we are negotiating over. What do you mean in any form? What are we negotiating over? Now this is such a hypothetical question, that if the PLO will cease to be the PLO and if we should negotiate not peace -then I don't know what but let's be clear - we are talking now about a Peace Conference, about putting peace, with peace treaties with the Arab countries - and we do not consider the PLO or any other group as a party for such treaties but the neighbouring countries: Egypt and Syria and Jordan and Lebanon.
I do anticipate to go to New York and the UN Assembly and if there will be also contact, negotiations between us and the Arab countries through the mediation, through the State Department, through Washington, through the administration, we shall participate with them.
Now I don't think this has got anything to do with the American attitude with the PLO, or with any other group. I'm talking about negotiations for peace treaties between us and the Arab countries. And if the PLO will not be included, in these negotiations, then I see no obstacle for having such discussions in the States - in New York or in Washington.
I want to say it in English that right at this moment, I don't know about any sign of the United States wish or tendency to change or to bring about any change in the 242 Resolution. Up to now I haven't heard anything in this spector or in this direction.
Q. Yesterday President Carter said that if the Palestinians were to accept 242 in a slightly modified form, he would open direct discussions with them. Do you expect a completely opposite view? Do you believe that there was adequate consultation between the United States and Israel on this question? Or do you regard it as a break in the special relationship between United States and Israel?
A. I don't want to refer to the question of the relationship between the United States and the PLO. We all know the American position about that, what they said about it in the past, and I don't want to try and guess about the future.
And I, what I can say here only about our position towards the PLO and not about the American position.
Q. After consultation about your view, between the United States and the PLO - between the United States and Israel?
A. As far as we are concerned, as far as I am concerned - I would rather not have the Americans consulting or discussing with the PLO, or recognizing them under any circumstances.
Q. Mr. Dayan. You referred twice before to the PLO, or any other group, Palestinian group. Is there some idea afloat to somehow get around the PLO, and bring in some other Palestinian group? Because you keep warning about another group. Is there some idea around that you want to tell us about?
A. Yes, I do distinguish between the PLO and the Arab Palestinians, as part of other missions - now we would not object if Palestinian Arabs would take part with the Jordanian delegation. But I did say that we do not think that any such group should become an additional party in Geneva, because we have nothing to negotiate with them over because they are not a State. So that's the difference between the PLO and other groups - the Palestinians.
Q. If the PLO were to accept 242 in it's pure form or a modified form and the United States were to begin talks -direct talks with the PLO, would that be a violation of Sinai 2?
A. That's highly hypothetical. Sinai 2 has got very clear positions and we have to see what it said, when and if, in order to see whether it is a violation or not. But basically speaking, as I said before, as far as we are concerned, we hope that the United States will not accept the PLO as a partner for negotiations or discussions about the future of the Middle East and peace and everything concerned with that, just because they accepted 242.
Q. As a Foreign Minister working within the framework of Resolution 242 do you foresee any difficulties for the State of Israel in the terms of this Resolution, to be changed slightly so that instead of referring to Palestinian refugees it might refer to the Palestinian people.
A. We do not support any change in the 242 and I'm happy to say that I haven't heard from anyone, till I came here, any idea of support to any change in the Resolution of 242.
So we are in good company in this case.
Q. Mr. Foreign Minister are you concerned about the apparent differences between your country and the United States in regards to the matters leading to a Geneva Conference?
A. What I am worried about are the differences. Of course I would rather have the Americans supporting all our views, which is not in this case, and I think that it is known, we do not support the idea of going back to the old-line with minor modifications, we don't think that this can be - should be the basis for a peace agreement. We do not agree with any kind of idea about a Palestinian Homeland or entity - or whatever it is in this field. And I suppose that there are some other elements in which we do not see eye to eye with the Americans.
Well I think that we can go to the Geneva Peace Conference, we hope that we shall have the support of the United States, with our basis concepts, but even if we shall not have their entire support and we shall have some differences, well then we'll have to take care of ourselves. That's the outcome of that. Ladies and gentlemen I want all of us to remember we are a free sovereign country, we are now keeping all the territories - we want very much to make peace, we are ready to compromise - on some points - we are ready to find ways to live together with the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. We are ready to put forward our positions. We are ready to listen to their positions, to their proposals and to negotiate it.
But it will be only Israel and the Arabs that can make peace. And I do believe the Americans stated time and again that they will not impose peace on us, or any terms of peace.
Q. Could you repeat for us the general principles you gave in the beginning in Hebrew?
A. We want a full peace treaty - a comprehensive peace treaty with normal relationships between us and the Arab countries signing this peace. With diplomatic relationships and free trade and everything which should take place between two countries which have normal relationships.
Then we want the Geneva Peace Conference, these negotiations to take place now in the near future, if possible in October or at any time this year. We are not looking for gaining time, or for - or we are not working for time, or for any interim agreement or partial agreement, or step-by-step or whatever you call it. We want full peace negotiations for it and if it is possible to agree to it right away, now.
We do not accept the idea of a Palestinian State, even under other titles - like "Homeland" or "entity" or whatever else. We are ready for territorial compromise in Sinai and we are ready to negotiate the line in the Golan Heights with Syria in order to satisfy the parties with the peace line, it should be satisfactory for the interests of the two parties. We do not think that the solution for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is either by a Palestinian State, or by any other form... So we are looking forward to a negotiation with the Arabs about how to live together - us and the Arab people - both in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank, and to find a modus vivendi. We do not accept the PLO as a party to negotiate peace with, or to accept them as a participant in the Geneva Peace Conference - but we do not object to Palestinian Arabs taking part within other Arab delegations, namely the Jordanian. And finally we want to sign peace treaties with the Arab countries and therefore it should be done, negotiated and concluded individually with each country, between us and the respective countries. It cannot be done between us and a united Arab delegation - something like that.
Q. What would the Israeli attitude be were the United States to give some form of assurances to the PLO?
A. What is exactly the question and please state the question clearly and loudly that even I can understand it.
Q. What would your attitude be, if the United States were to give some form of assurances to the PLO. If the PLO accepted the 242 and the United States assurance might be for Palestinian national rights?
A. But in what respect what should our attitude be? In what way? Whether should we then accept them as a party in the Geneva Conference? or what?
Q. What would your attitude be towards the United States?
A. We would - I don't think, and I don't know to this moment, any tendency by the United States that the PLO should take part in the Geneva Peace Conference. I haven't heard of that. But should there be such a position, we shall oppose it. I believe - ladies and gentlemen - I believe it is up to the parties, and that this is acceptable by everybody - also the United States of America - that it is only up to the parties to agree to an additional party in the Geneva Peace Conference. And unless all the parties agree to that, then no additional party can be included in the Geneva Peace Conference. In other words, unless we agree to that, no one can join that convention.
Now we do agree that Lebanon, which did not take part in the previous negotiations, would join the Peace Conference if they want to. But we shall not accept and agree for the PLO and I don't know about any interpretation that deprives us of this right not to accept it, and then they won't come in.
Q. Early you spoke about a foreign power - that Israel would not agree to foreign power take over part of the West Bank. Would Jordan fall into the category of a foreign power, as far as you're concerned?
A. That is correct.