In late September, the focus of Israel-U.S. talks was still the procedure to be followed in the re-convened Geneva Conference, the issue of Palestinian representation and the agenda. Mr. Dayan said that the U.S. was insisting on Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Israel's refusal to agree to any move that could be in any way construed as leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Extracts from the interview follow:
The American demands to include the subject of a Palestinian entity in the agenda of the Geneva Conference, and that an independent Palestinian delegation participate at the conference, are the points of contention with the United States, the Foreign Minister, Mr. Dayan said in an interview with "Ha'aretz". In this context he said that the main difficulty was that what the United States was striving for was that Israel should leave the West Bank and that an independent entity and state should be set up there. Israel would not be a partner even to any procedural move that could be construed as leading to the setting up of a Palestinian State, Mr. Dayan said. He also said that it had been agreed between the parties that the negotiations at the Geneva Conference would take place bilaterally - After the ceremony and that Israel would seek American assurances that there would be no departures from the procedures to be established at the opening of the conference.
In reply to my question, Mr. Dayan said that two subjects had been clarified in his talks over here: Palestinian representation and the joint Arab delegation. On the latter issue - the delegation - it was understood that the negotiations would be bi-lateral. The distinction was simple and clear-cut, Mr. Dayan said. After the ceremonial part, negotiations would be conducted separately with each state. What was termed 'negotiations for a peace treaty' should be bi-lateral, between Israel and the individual states. On this there were no differences with the Americans and Israel had gained the impression that after (their) meetings with the Egyptians and the Jordanians, the Americans had got "clearance" on this issue.
In reply to my question what Israel would do if, for example, someone from among the Arabs got up at Geneva and demanded that a discussion on the future of Jerusalem be held or on some other subject, in contravention of what had been agreed, Mr. Dayan said that we would have to get an American undertaking in advance that would prevent such departures (from agreed procedure).
Three points were raised on the issue of Palestinian representation, Mr. Dayan said:
A. The most difficult of all was the question of the delegation. We fear that not only the Arabs but the Americans as well would like to see the Palestinians constituting a delegation of their own. "If we agree to an independent Palestinian delegation, this means that we have a partner for talks on the establishment of a state. We are opposed to this demand" - but Mr. Dayan does not deny that it still exists.
B. The second point is - what should be discussed? The Americans would like the agenda to include the Palestinian entity, but even if there is no independent Palestinian delegation at the Geneva Conference, it would be impossible (for Israel) to agree to this demand.
C. The third point - the PLO want some indication, even symbolic that its own delegates are being invited to the conference, but they want to decide who those delegates are to be. They want to be invited as the representatives of the Palestinians, without any connection with other participants from the West Bank. They do not want to get in by the back door, and they do not want anybody else to see to their interests.
Mr. Dayan said that he did not feel that the Americans were keen to be the defenders of this demand. Perhaps there had been a certain cooling-off towards the PLO and the pressure that this organization recognise Resolution 242 had eased up - perhaps so that the Americans would not have to give it legitimization for the Geneva Conference.
When I asked Mr. Dayan whether there had been any erosion in the American position regarding Resolution 242, he said that he had sensed no tendency among the Americans towards any such change. He could not see how the Geneva Conference could be convened on any other basis than Resolution 338 (which refers to 242).
"The Americans are still acting in accordance with Mr. Begin's preliminary request, which was to deal with procedure now and leave the substance for later. When Mr. Vance came to Israel, he insisted that we deal with the substance, and we filled up papers, but at present the Americans are dealing with procedure because they are 'stuck' on the opening. What happens the next day is a weighty question, and procedure certainly intermingles with contents. The alternative the Americans now have is either to discuss the substance now and get stranded on a reef, or to confine themselves to procedural questions for the time being."
In reply to a question on U.S. guarantees, Mr. Dayan said that the possible nature of such guarantees was a question that could be examined prior to the Geneva Conference (though it was one of substance) and he assumed that it would be clarified.