PRESIDENT REAGAN'S MIDDLE EAST PEACE INITIATIVE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 3, 2013
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 10, 1982
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
FROM:
EXTENSION
NO.
DATE
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
INITIALS
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
1.
(.... j-d4.1 ........._
ezip Ae" li
2.
....
/PI
if rd, a
/ ir %,...7s; '
t
d
e 91i )
,,
r
,.
v
/
4.
a. 575?2--- '!
? '---
A i -fic?
?
y0.4A;5. /uzeiotc,_, i
?
illo i,..te
1.4/-4 f5-4
/
/a1*(/4'r,"
/24.?Z ?
-
0
10.
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM 610 USS
1? EDITIONS
79
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
1111
111
Current
Policy No. 418
Secretary Shultz
President Reagan's
Middle East
Peace Initiative
September 10, 1982
United States Department of State
Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, D.C.
Following is a statement by Secretary
Shultz before the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, September 10, 1982.
I am very pleased to have this oppor-
tunity to discuss with you the Admini-
stration's recent policy steps in the Mid-
dle East. We have begun actions of a
wide range and of immense importance.
The positive bipartisan support for
President Reagan's peace initiative has
been evident to us and is deeply appreci-
ated. That support is essential to the
conduct of a vigorous and creative
foreign policy and, accordingly, I deeply
appreciate your willingness to meet with
me on short notice.
A little over 2 months ago, I came
before you as a nominee for Secretary of
State. In those hearings, we were all
clearly concerned about the problems
presented by the Middle East and the
Palestinian issues in particular. I empha-
sized then our efforts to secure a cease-
fire in Lebanon, as the first step toward
our goal of a united, sovereign Lebanon,
freed from foreign forces. I also empha-
sized the importance of Israeli security
and overall peace, while recognizing the
legitimate rights of the Palestinians and
their just requirements.
Since then, not just your attention
but the world's attention was focused on
the Middle East and particularly on our
diplomatic efforts there to end the blood-
shed and to bring a deeper and lasting
peace to the area. With the successful
evacuation of the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) from Beirut, we
have turned to the next steps necessary
for peace: the withdrawal of all foreign
forces from Lebanon and the restoration
of central authority in that country and,
of prime importance, the reinvigoration
of the Camp David peace process in an
effort to resolve fairly the underlying
Arab-Israeli dispute.
Lebanon, of course, has suffered
grievously over the last several months,
let alone the last several years. Phil
Habib's [President's special emissary to
the Middle East] and Morris Draper's
[Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near
East and South Asian Affairs] successful
negotiation of the withdrawal of the
PLO from Beirut established the first
phase of our approach to the problem of
Lebanon. The U.S. Marine contingent in
the multinational force completed its
withdrawal from Beirut at 2:00 this
morning, well within the 30-day period
the President specified in his notification
to you. The French and Italian contin-
gents will begin their withdrawal soon.
The Government of Lebanon, mean-
while, is working carefully but surely to
reestablish authority over all parts of
Beirut, with the Lebanese Army and
police increasingly assuming security re-
sponsibilities in the city.
A second phase in our Lebanon
diplomacy is now before us. As all of
you know, the Presdent is sending Am-
bassador Draper to Lebanon to begin
negotiations on withdrawal of foreign
forces from that country. The President
has made it clear that he personally in-
tends to stay fully engaged in efforts to
bring about a strong, free, united, and
healthy Lebanon, sovereign throughout
all its territories within internationally
recognized borders. The withdrawal of
all foreign military forces from Lebanon
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
must be accompanied by the creation of
conditions in southern Lebanon to pre-
serve Israeli security. In the immediate
future, we will seek a further stabiliza-
tion in the situation in Beirut. We must
create an environment in Lebanon that
will allow the newly elected Lebanese
Government?free of outside pressure or
imposed solutions?to carry on with its
task of national reconciliation. The
desperate need for economic reconstruc-
tion can be well served through such re-
conciliation and the withdrawal of
foreign forces.
The United States is a staunch
friend of the Lebanese people and will
be a good partner in Lebanon's courage-
ous effort to rebuild its economy and to
strengthen its national institutions. We
will exercise our responsibility and duty
to give every opportunity to the
Lebanese themselves to recreate a
united but pluralistic society behind
strong leadership from their newly
elected president. We also look forward
to cooperating with appropriate interna-
tional institutions in the effort to ameli-
orate the destruction caused by the long
and most unfortunate fighting.
These efforts to rebuild Lebanon and
strengthen its institutions can only be
helped by progress in the overall search
for a Middle East peace. The problems
of Lebanon are distinct and must be ad-
dressed whenever possible separately
from our Middle East peace initiative,
but both tasks must be carried on with-
out delay. The President will, therefore,
dispatch Ambassador Draper to
Lebanon this weekend, while we also
continue to work on the overall peace
initiative.
When I was before you in the confir-
mation hearings, I noted our commit-
ment to solving the Palestinian problem
within the Camp David framework.
Right after your vote to report my
nomination favorably to the full Senate,
the President instructed me that he
wished high priority be placed on ad-
dressing the underlying Arab-Israeli
dispute, especially the Palestinian issues.
The President's statement last week
began a fresh start on the Arab-Israeli
dispute. The fundamental problems in-
volved are of universal concern not just
to the people of the region but to the
United States and other countries as
well. The events of the last month have
demonstrated that we Americans have a
special responsibility in the efforts to
bring peace to the area. No one else has
the credibility?and therefore the
ability?to provide the crucial link to all
sides.
The President's Middle East peace
initiative is based on an intensive and
detailed review of the problem. We have
discussed?the issues in detail with
members of this committee and others
in the Congress, with former govern-
ment officials, and many other knowl-
edgeable people. The paramount conclu-
sions of that review are that (1) it is
time to address, forcefully and directly,
the underlying Palestinian issues, and (2)
genuine success depends upon broaden-
ing participation in the negotiations to
include, as envisaged in the Camp David
accords, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the
representatives of the Palestinian
people.
In taking this initiative, the Presi-
dent established two conditions?we will
remain fully committed to both the prin-
ciples of the Camp David accords and to
the security of Israel. The Camp David
framework has one key element that all
other peace plans lack: It has been suc-
cessful. It produced the only treaty of
peace between Israel and an Arab coun-
try and the completion of the disengage-
ment and return of the Sinai. Moreover,
the Camp David framework has the
necessary room for negotiations to fulfill
the legitimate rights of the Palestinian
people and to reach peace treaties be-
tween Israel and her neighbors. As
President Carter said a week ago,
"There is absolutely nothing in the Presi-
dent's speech . . . nor in the information
he sent to the Israelis which is contrary
to either the letter or the spirit of Camp
David. It is absolutely compatible with
the Camp David agreement." Our initia-
tive will give the provisions of Camp
David their full meaning and a new
dynamism.
This renewed dynamism for the
Camp David negotiations will insure
Israeli security, and we emphatically will
require the product of the negotiations
to do so. As the President's speech
noted, this country, this Administration,
and the President personally are com-
mitted to Israel's security. This same re-
newed dynamism also will provide ap-
propriate regard to the "legitimate
rights of the Palestinian people and their
just requirements." Camp David itself
calls for the residents of the West Bank
and Gaza and other Palestinians as
agreed to participate in negotiating the
two primary means of achieving those
rights?a 5-year transitional period of
autonomous self-government and final
status after the 5-year transitional
period. By renewing the process, we
seek to fulfill the hope of Camp David:
Israel and her neighbors, Jordan, Egypt,
and the Palestinians, engaged in fair,
direct, and successful negotiations on
how they will all live together.
t_
The Camp David accords provide
that these negotiated arrangements on
final status must be "just, comprehen-
sive, . . . durable," and "based on Securi-
ty Council Resolutions 242 and 338 in all
their parts." Security Council Resolution
242 sets forth the two key principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces
from territories occupied.. ..
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of
belligerency and respect for and acknowl-
edgement of the sovereignty, territorial in-
tegrity and political independence of every
State in the area and their right to live in
peace within secure and recognized boun-
daries free from threats or acts of force.
As it has often been summarized,
peace for territory.
We believe these principles apply on
all fronts, but our position on the extent
of withdrawal will be significantly in-
fluenced by the extent and nature of the
peace and security arrangements being
offered in return. Israel, Jordan, Egypt,
and the elected representatives of the in-
habitants of the West Bank and Gaza
will negotiate the final boundaries,
recognizing Palestinian legitimate rights,
and securing what Resolution 338 calls a
"just and durable peace." We will sup-
port positions in those negotiations
which we believe are fair. Those posi-
tions include:
Israeli Sovereignty/Palestinian
State. It is the President's belief that
the Palestinian problem cannot be re-
solved through Israeli sovereignty or
control over the West Bank and Gaza.
Accordingly, we will not support such a
solution. We will also not support the
formation of a Palestinian state in those
negotiations. There is no foundation of
political support in Israel or in the
United States for such a solution and
peace cannot be achieved by that route.
The preference we will pursue in the
final status negotiations is some form of
association of the West Bank and Gaza
with Jordan.
Self-determination. In the Middle
East context, the term "self-deter-
mination" has been identified exclusively
with the formation of a Palestinian
state. We will not support this definition
of self-determination. We do believe that
the Palestinians must take a leading role
in determining their own future and ful-
ly support the provision in the Camp
David agreement providing for the
elected representatives of the inhabi-
tants of the West Bank and Gaza to
-decide how they shall govern themselves
consistent with the provisions of their
agreement in the final status negotia-
tions.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: 6IA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
111
Jerusalem. We will fully support the
position that Jerusalem must be undivid-
ed and that its status must be deter-
mined through negotiations. We do not
recognize unilateral acts with respect to
final status issues.
Settlements. The status of Israeli
settlements must be determined in the
course of the final status negotiations.
We will not support their continuation
as extraterritorial outposts, but neither
will we support efforts to deny Jews the
opportunity to live in the West Bank
and Gaza under the duly constituted
governmental authority there, as Arabs
live in Israel.
Negotiations on the final status of
the area will not start until a self-
governing authority for the territories is
firmly in place. Negotiations about the
transitional phase have been in progress
for the last 3 years. In those negotia-
tions we have consistently expressed our
views to our negotiating partners, Israel
and Egypt, as issues arose. Most recent-
ly, we informed our partners of how
these separate expressions fit into our
overall view of Palestinian self-govern-
ment during a transitional period.
In our view, the objective of the
transitional period is the peaceful and
orderly transfer of authority from Israel
to the Palestinian inhabitants, while in-
suring that all necessary measures are
taken to assure Israeli security.
We have emphasized that this period
is transitional, not final, and that, there-
fore, the provisions relating to it should
not prejudice the final status. In light of
those views, we have told our partners
that we have supported and will con-
tinue to support:
? The definition of full autonomy
giving the Palestinian inhabitants real
authority over themselves, the land, and
its resources subject to fair safeguards
on water;
? The inclusion of economic, com-
mercial, social, and cultural ties between
the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan;
? Participation by the Palestinian in-
habitants of east Jerusalem in the elec-
tion for the West Bank/Gaza authority;
and
? Progressive Palestinian respon-
sibilty for internal security based on
capability and performance.
Using those same standards, we
have opposed and will continue to op-
pose:
? Dismantlement of existing settle-
ments; and
? Provisions which represent a
threat to Israel's security.
As the President noted in his
speech, we are attempting to reinvigor-
ate the autonomy negotiations. That
effort would be assisted to a great ex-
tent by a freeze of the Israeli settle-
ments in the occupied territories, which
was requested during the Camp David
negotiations. Our concern is not with
their legality or illegality but with their
effects on the peace process.
The President's initiative follows
over 3 years of active negotiations, con-
tinuous discussions of the issues involved
over the same period, and, most recent-
ly, two trips to the Middle East by the
Secretary of State this year and addi-
tional trips by Ambassador Fairbanks
[Special Negotiator for the Middle East
Peace Process] and by others working
on the negotiations. We have put these
ideas in some detail to the Israelis and
the key Arab states, including Jordan
and Egypt. They are now examining the
proposals. It would be surprising if they
liked or disliked all of them. We have
received reactions from some of our in-
terlocutors. We are studying those reac-
tions. We confidently expect to continue
our discussions, with the Israelis, with
the Arab countries, and with other
friendly governments.
The President has now articulated a
reasonable basis for a negotiated com-
promise among the parties. We em-
phasize that any agreement must be
based on the free give-and-take of the
negotiating process. We do not
guarantee to any party the outcome of
the negotiations on any issue. The Presi-
dent has now stated publicly some U.S.
positions on key issues. We now call for
the parties contemplated by the Camp
David agreement to join us in seeking
peace.
Mr. Chairman [Senator Charles H.
Percy], I am very grateful for the words
of support and encouragement that you
and the members of this committee have
given. Your emphasis in several inter-
views on the deep yearning for peace in
the countries and peoples of this area;
Senator Cranston's and Senator Bosch-
witz's support for the effort to broaden
the process and involve the Jordanians
and representatives of the Palestinians;
and Senator Mathias' emphasis on the
need for all to address this problem ob-
jectively are indications that the Con-
gress and the Administration are
together, focused on this essential task.
As you put it, "There just isn't an alter-
native for finding a basis for lasting
peace. . . . Think what could happen to
this area in the Middle East if peace is
found, and a basis for working together
with its Arab neighbors is found by
Israel and its Arab neighbors."
We now have the initial formal reac-
tions from the Israeli Government and
the Arab League summit. The Israeli
Government, supported by a vote of the
Knesset, has opposed the President's
proposals. While not directly addressing
the President's proposals, the Arab
League summit has put forward its own
proposals, key elements of which are at
variance with our proposals. The Presi-
dent stands firmly behind his proposals.
The reactions of the Israeli Government
and of the Arab League are clear and
graphic evidence that the position of
both sides must be negotiated if we are
to bring genuine peace and security to
this troubled region.
The opening positions have been an-
nounced. Now is the time for quiet
diplomacy to pursue the President's initi-
ative and bring it to fruition.
In launching this initiative, the
President determined that he would stay
fully involved and fully committed to the
principles he enunciated. We will be
working hard over the next weeks in
light of the new dynamic the initiative
introduces to bring the peace process
forward. I pledge to you that we will be
exercising the creativity, the per-
sistence, and the dogged determination
to succeed which marked the successful
effort in Beirut. I also emphasize to you
that we recognize that our effort is to
bring a lasting, effective, and just peace
to this area. That goal can hardly be ac-
complished in a few short weeks. We
ask you to stay with the President in his
determination to sustain this effort and
to look for the long-term, just solution.
We believe, deeply and purposefully,
that peace can come between Arabs and
Jews. No greater purpose can be placed
before us all than a just and lasting
peace. ?
Published by the United States Department
of State ? Bureau of Public Affairs ? Office
of Public Communication ? Editorial Divi-
sion ? Washington, D.C. ? September 1982
Editor: Colleen Sussman ? This material is in
the public domain and may be reproduced
without permission; citation of this source is
appreciated.
3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03 : CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
? ?
Bureau of Public Affairs
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
Official Business
If address is incorrect
please indicate change.
Do not cover or destroy 110""
this address label.
Postage and Fees Paid
Department of State
STA-501
Third Class Bulk Rate
riuN
U.S.MAIL
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
MIF
Current
Policy No. 419
Secretary Shultz
The Quest for Peace
September 12, 1982
Following is an address by Secretary
Shultz before the United Jewish Appeal,
New York City, September 12, 1982.
No theme is more appropriate for my
first speech as Secretary of State than
the theme of peace. No objective we
share is more worthy or more elusive: to
attain it requires realism, strength, the
capacity to run risks, and the ability to
gather trust. It takes sustained goodwill
to build up that trust. And it takes
serious, fair, and direct bargaining at
the negotiating table to hammer out
workable and durable agreements.
If we needed any reminder, events
of this year make it clear that we do not
live in a world of peace. Scarcely a
region of the developing world?where
peace is crucial for social and economic
growth?has been spared. From Indo-
china to the Horn of Africa, from the
Persian Gulf and Afghanistan to the tip
of South America, wars raged with
frightening intensity and tragic results.
Some cases, such as the Soviets' im-
perialistic war in Afghanistan, are new
conflicts where one nation is seeking to
extend its power and control. But much
of the violence we witnessed this year,
including the war over the Falklands,
represented only the latest outbreak of
long-smouldering disputes. Mankind has
advanced his capacity to wage war. But
his ability to settle disputes peacefully
and to prevent violence remains
primitive.
United States Department of State
Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, D.C.
We have clear codes of international
morality and law. From the words of the
prophets to the rhetoric of 20th century
statesmen, mankind has set out stand-
ards for individual and international
behavior. Over the last two centuries,
nations have formed international bodies
to adjudicate disputes, resolve conflicts,
and promote peace. But the ideal of a
world at peace has remained, and will
remain, a mirage until nations pursue,
as a matter of course, policies rooted in
mutual respect and aimed at forging and
fostering a just international order.
The formula for peace often requires
that we convince our adversaries of the
strength of our forces and of our will to
defend liberty and security. That same
formula demands that we stand pre-
pared to meet with our adversaries and
work with them to bridge differences.
Despite the catalogue of troubles around
the world, there are great opportunities
and practical possibilities before us to-
day.
The pursuit of peace with freedom,
security, and justice is the essence of
America's foreign policy. Our country's
commitment to peace is beyond doubt,
based on our creative, unrelenting
efforts in that cause.
The past year has been a year rich
in American efforts for peace. At the
President's direction, and with the com-
mitment of American peacekeeping
forces, Secretary Haig took the lead in
creating the multinational force that
helped make good on the historic Israeli
move for peace: withdrawal from the
Sinai. Deputy Secretary of State Walter
Stoessel worked intensively in the
crucial final weeks to assure that
achievement. Ours was the nation that
made a major effort to head off the
tragic war in the South Atlantic. We
have continued the effort to find peace-
ful and just settlements to the fighting
in Indochina and Afghanistan. With all
America behind him?including once
again our dedicated men in uniform?
Phil Habib [President's special emissary
to the Middle East] used every ounce of
his legendary skill and stamina to pre-
vent a tragic denouement of the war in
Lebanon. We are currently engaged in a
major diplomatic effort to achieve Nami-
bian independence and lasting security
in southern Africa. We have provided
vigorous backing for the international
efforts that secured Libya's withdrawal
from Chad. And to ease the dangers of
nuclear war, the President has proposed
major reductions of U.S. and Soviet
nuclear weapons and has offered new
proposals to advance the talks on the
reduction of conventional forces.
International institutions and resolu-
tions for peace need practical efforts to
give them life. Mankind has made aston-
ishing technological and material leaps
in the last 40 years. But we must make
equally dramatic gains in the political
realm if we are to bequeath a safe and
secure world of peace to our children.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
I believe we can make those gains.
Strength of arms and of will are essen-
tial, but no more so than the ability to
find that winning mixture of courage
and realism. No matter what the
obstacles, we must persevere?for there
are no more noble nor important goals
than peace, freedom, and security.
The President's Peace Initiative
in the Middle East
These principles apply fully to that set
of goals foremost in our thoughts
today?peace in the Middle East and
security and success for Israel and her
Arab neighbors. No one who has walked
the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv
and who has talked at length with as
many Israeli people as I have can doubt
that they want peace and security, and I
am dedicated to helping them achieve
both.
Against the backdrop of confronta-
tion, despair, and fear that have char-
acterized the search for peace in the
Middle East, three key documents spell
out how peace might be made a reality.
? The first is U.N. Security Council
Resolution 242, which established the
basis for a negotiating process founded
on the idea of an exchange of territory
for real peace.
? The second is the Camp David ac-
cords, which?in the Egypt-Israel Peace
Treaty?led directly to the realization of
such an exchange of territory for peace.
Camp David calls for a "just, compre-
hensive, and durable" Middle East peace
based on Resolution 242, but builds on it
as well by calling for a solution that
recognizes "the legitimate rights of the
Palestinian people and their just require-
ments" and a "resolution of the Pales-
tinian problem in all its aspects."
? And third, there is the President's
speech of September 1. This historic ad-
dress builds on the earlier documents by
stating categorically that our approach
to peace will continue to be based on
Resolution 242, with its concept of an
exchange of territory for peace, and the
Camp David accords, which provide for
Palestinian self-government with full
guarantees for Israel's security.
While I cannot summarize for you
the totality of a rich and complex
speech, I would like to review four im-
portant points made by the President.
First, there should be full safe-
guards for Israeli security, both internal
and external, throughout the transitional
period and beyond. The President has
made this forcefully clear.
Second, as stated in Camp David,
there should be a transitional period of 5
years during which. the Palestinians of
the West Bank and Gaza should be per-
mitted to exercise full autonomy.
Third, the United States believes
that peace cannot be achieved on the
basis of Israeli sovereignty over the
West Bank and Gaza but must be based
on Resolution 242's formula of an ex-
change of territory for peace. Our pref-
erence is for self-government by the
Palestinians in association with Jordan,
with the extent of withdrawal deter-
mined by the quality of peace offered in
return.
Fourth, the United States also be-
lieves that peace cannot be achieved by
the creation of an independent Pales-
tinian state on the West Bank and Gaza.
The President has stated clearly and
unequivocally that we will not support
an independent Palestinian state in the
territories.
One section of the President's speech
especially deserves reading tonight word
for word, because it did not appear in
the text printed in the New York Times.
But don't blame the Times. The passage
was inserted by the President at the
very last minute?after the press had re-
ceived their copies. It was put in be-
cause the President wanted to speak
from his heart to the people of Israel.
The President said this:
I have personally followed and supported
Israel's heroic struggle for survival ever since
the founding of the State of Israel 34 years
ago. In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was bare-
ly 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The
bulk of Israel's population lived within ar-
tillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not
about to ask Israel to live that way again.
Those words represent the Presi-
dent's, and America's, fundamental com-
mitment to Israeli security and to genu-
ine peace. Our commitment grows out of
a sense of moral obligation but also out
of strategic interest. A strong, secure
Israel is in our interests and the inter-
ests of peace. There will be no peace
without Israeli security, but Israel will
never be secure without peace. Our vi-
sion of the future on the West Bank is
one guided by a vision of a secure Israel
living with defensible borders and by our
abiding belief that it is not in Israel's
long-term interests to try to rule over
the more than 1 million Palestinians liv-
ing in the West Bank and Gaza.
Approval for the President's initia-
tive is gathering force and momentum,
both here at home and abroad. I believe
it will gather more and more support as
people read and study that speech care-
fully. The same is true of the Camp
David accords on which the President's
speech is based. Those who do take the
time to read those historic documents
soon recognize the genius of Camp
David. It is an accomplishment that is a
tribute to the statesmanship of th?
leaders of three great nations?Prime
Minister Begin, the late President
Sadat, and our own President Carter.
The Opportunity of the Present
Despite the many dark periods of stag-
nation, setback, and delay since 1967, a
look at the long-term trend in the Mid-
dle East is encouraging. After a quarter
century of sterile conflict and confronta-
tion, the past decade has seen a building
momentum toward peace. Three nego-
tiated disengagement agreements have
been signed. President Sadat paid his
historic and stirring visit to Jerusalem.
There was the great achievement of the
Camp David framework and the signing
in 1979 and fulfillment this past April of
the first treaty of peace between Israel
and an Arab neighbor?a treaty that is a
tribute to the willingness of the people
of Israel and of Prime Minister Begin to
take risks for peace. I say the first trea-
ty because there must be?and there will
be?more to come. For only in the con-
text of true peace, freely negotiated, can
there be true security for Israel and her
neighbors.
Nothing is more crucial than
building on this momentum. But, as has
been obvious to all, the stalemate in the
autonomy talks over the past 2 or more
years, and the outbreak of major mili-
tary conflict this past summer, pose a
grave threat to further progress.
In these circumstances, President
Reagan decided that the time had come
for renewed American leadership. He
acted, as well, because the Middle East
today is at a moment of unprecedented
opportunity: Israel, the moderate Arab
states, the Palestinians, and the United
States are all affected, and all now face
the choice between hope and frustration,
between peace and conflict.
Israel has demonstrated once again,
at tragic cost, that it will not be de-
feated militarily. If Israel's adversaries
want peace and justice they must recog-
nize, clearly and explicitly, the right of
the State of Israel to exist, and they
must enter, as President Reagan said,
"direct, hard, and fair" negotiations with
Israel. When they do, Israel then has
the chance to translate military strength
into peace, the only long-term security.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9 _ _
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
VIP
For the moderate Arabs, there is
the opportunity to demonstrate that the
course of negotiations can produce
results and serve their vital interests.
For Lebanon, there is now a second
chance; the chance once again to be free,
prosperous, and democratic, posing no
threat to its neighbors and serving as a
stable bridge between the West and the
Arab world.
The Palestinians now confront a
great decision: whether to continue
down the self-destructive road of armed
struggle, which has only produced
tragedy for the Palestinian people, or to
seize the opportunity to affect their
destiny by way of the peace process.
The Camp David framework upholds the
importance of self-government for the
Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza.
And it provides Palestinian representa-
tives the right to participate in the
determination of their future at every
step in that process.
For the United States, the brilliant,
dogged diplomatic achievement of Presi-
dential emissary Phil Habib has shown
America's determination and ability to
promote just and peaceful solutions to
the problems of the area. His work is
but the latest evidence of how crucial is
the help of the United States if the
peoples and nations of the region are to
stop the fighting, construct solid agree-
ments, and prevent wars between Arabs
and Israelis from again threatening to
become the focal point of global conflict.
In his historic address to the Israeli
Knesset, Anwar Sadat spoke of
"moments in the lives of nations and
peoples when it is incumbent upon those
known for their wisdom and clarity of
vision, to penetrate beyond the past,
with all its complexities and vain
memories, in a bold drive toward new
horizons." The present is such a moment
for us all.
The President has offered a chal-
lenge?the challenge of peace?to
Israelis and Arabs alike. Everyone talks
so much about peace that it requires
some effort to stop and comprehend
what it really can mean: Relief from the
horrible burden of war can unleash the
full development of human potential,
promising even greater creativity in the
arts and sciences. Peace offers new eco-
nomic possibilities?when the defense
burden is lightened?to build a better
,life at home and contribute to the pros-
perity of the region and the world.
Peace can mean fruitful economic co-
operation between Israel and her neigh-
bors. Imagine ho* the genius of the
Israeli nation could flourish if it were
freed from the physical and psycho-
logical burdens imposed by the continu-
ing state of conflict. Imagine the enorm-
ous contribution that the peoples of this
region?so rich in spiritual strength?
could make to all mankind.
The Challenge to Israel
The challenge that the President has
offered to Israel is to extend its hand to
welcome wider participation in the peace
process. Israel has demonstrated once
more its military strength and bravery.
But we all recognize that while true
peace requires military strength,
strength alone is not enough; true peace
can only be achieved through lasting
negotiated agreements leading ultimate-
ly to friendly cooperation between Israel
and its neighbors.
In the 1948 war of independence
Israel lost 6,000 dead, out of a popula-
tion that was much smaller than it is to-
day; it lost nearly 200 dead in 1956,
nearly 700 in 1967, and hundreds more
in the war of attrition that lasted until
1970; 2,800 young Israelis were killed in
the 1973 war and more than 300 in
1982.
That terrible cycle of death and
suffering must end. The evacuation of
the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO) from Beirut and the forceful
demonstration of Israeli capability make
this an altogether unique moment, a mo-
ment of opportunity to end this cycle.
Triumphs of statecraft are decisions
whichjoin opportunity with action. If
this opportunity is allowed to pass it
may never come again.
The challenge Israel faces now is to
combine diplomacy with power to build
an enduring political settlement. There
is nothing that says that Palestinian self-
government in association with Jordan
must lead inevitably to a Palestinian
state. The President has said that we
will not support such an outcome. It is
not beyond the reach of diplomacy to
create, nor Israeli military power to in-
sure, that agreed arrangements for the
West Bank will not erode over time.
U.S. determination that concrete, iron-
clad arrangements for the security of
Israel accompany the ultimate resolution
of the Palestinian question is height-
ened, not diminished, by the fact that
we have views on a desirable direction
for the negotiations.
The crucial point is that when it
comes to safeguarding the long-term
security of Israel, the friendship and
resolve of the United States are second
in importance only to Israel's own reso-
lution and strength. And, in the final
analysis, that friendship and resolve
deserve, in return, to be reciprocated by
a willingness to listen with an open mind
to the views of others. But let me be
clear: We have a right to be heard but
we have no intention of using our sup-
port for Israel's security as a way of im-
posing our views.
We must not underestimate the
dilemmas and risks that Israel faces iift
opting for negotiations, but they are
dwarfed by those created by a continua-
tion of the status quo. The United States
recognizes its obligations, as the prin-
cipal supporter of Israel's security, to be
understanding of Israel's specific circum-
stances in the negotiating process. The
President has urged consideration of his
proposals in the context of negotiations,
to be undertaken without preconditions
and with no thought of imposed solu-
tions.
That is why the United States par-
ticularly asked that the parties them-
selves not preclude possible outcomes by
concrete and perhaps irreversible actions
undertaken before the process of negoti-
ation is completed. While we support the
right of Jews to live in peace on the
West Bank and Gaza under the duly con-
stituted governmental authority there?
just as Arabs live in Israel?we regard
the continuation of settlement activity
prior to the conclusion of negotiations as
detrimental to the peace process.
The Challenge to the Arabs
The President has offered a fundamental
challenge to the Arabs as well. It is time
for the Arab world to recognize the op-
portunity provided by Camp David. The
path of rejection has achieved nothing
but tragedy, particularly for the Pales-
tinians. Surely, the pattern of agonies of
this capable and courageous people must
not be repeated. Alternatively, the
Camp David process and the President's
fresh start offers a promise of resolution
with honor and justice to those with the
wisdom to join the peace process. But it
also implies a corollary: Those who fail
to join will miss a precious opportunity?
an opportunity for peace that may not
come again soon.
The absence of Jordan and repre-
sentatives of the Palestinian inhabitants
of the occupied territories from the ne-
gotiations has been the crucial missing
link in the Camp David process. Success
in the peace process depends on Arab
support for these vital missing partners
to join the negottions and become
partners for peace. We trust that sup-
port will be forthcoming soon. Our con-
sultations with the Arab world will be
designed to encourage such support. We
recognize the risks to all parties, but the
risks of failure are even greater. The
Arab nations missed one chance for
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
(21.61.mMIMMS141A1:]
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9
peace when they rejected the 1947 U.N.
partition plan. Then, for nearly two
decades, they rejected the legitimacy of
the boundaries within which the Israelis
lived so insecurely prior to 1967. In 1978
they refused to support Egypt when the
Camp David accords were signed. To-
day, the Arabs again have great oppor-
tunities: to move from belligerency to
negotiation to peace; and to work
realistically and practically for the rights
of the Palestinians. But these oppor-
tunities, like the previous ones, will not
last forever.
A "New Realism" for Us All
Thus for the Palestinians and other
Arabs, and for Israel, this is indeed the
moment, as the President said, for a
"new realism." An element in that
realism is that the United States has
decided to state publicly where it stands
on critical questions. There will be, as I
have said, no imposed solutionskply
point agreed by Israel and its Arab
neighbors will not be opposed by us. But
at the same time, the United States is
now obligated, by reality and morality
alike, to make known its views on what
we believe is needed to reach a fair,
workable, and lasting solution. This the
President did on the first of September.
The President's initiative contains firm
American principles; we will not depart
from them. As we move ahead the
United States, as a full partner, will
reserve the right to support positions on
either side when we feel this is likely to
promote fair agreement. And we will
put forward our own proposals when ap-
propriate, to the same end. I reiterate,
however, that no specific negotiated re-
sult is ruled out: That is the essence of
the process.
We must also recognize another
reality: The positions now held by the
potential partners in negotiations are
widely at variance. The point however is
this: Any participant in this process?in-
cluding the United States as a full part-
ner?is free to have and to enunciate its
positions. Once views are expressed, the
place, indeed the only place, to thrash
out differences is at the bargaining
table. If there were no differences of
opinion, there would be no need for
negotiations.
The issues are complex, the emo-
tions deep, the forces in the Middle East
contentious, and the stakes so great.
The wisdom of the peace process must
spring from recognition of these facts.
Bitterness dies hard, while trust grows
slowly. President Reagan has now set
out the lines of a fair and realistic solu-
tion; together with the other parties we
should all come together to discuss and
negotiate these matters.
There is no need now to agree on
any principle but one: That is the need
to come together at the bargaining table
to talk?to talk about differences; to talk
about aspirations; to talk about peace;
but in all events to talk. We ask for
nothing more of any of the participants
at the beginning of the process. And we
have the deepest duty and obligation to
ask for no less.
If it takes more time, we are pre-
pared for that. But there are limits?this
opportunity must not be lost. One hun-
dred and twenty years ago, Abraham
Lincoln, speaking to the Congress of the
United States, said that "The dogmas of
the. . . past are inadequate to the . . .
present. The occasion is piled high with
difficulty, and we must rise with the oc-
casion. As our case is new, so we must
think anew and act anew."
In this spirit, and with the vision,
self-confidence, and-mutual trust that
has marked our relationship at its best
moments, Israel and America?and our
Arab friends, now and in the future?
can shape a life of dignity, justice, and
true peace. ?
Published by tfie United States Department
of State ? Bureau of Public Affairs Office of
Public Communication ? Editorial Divi-
? sion ? Washington, D.C. ? September 1982
Editor: Colleen Sussman ? This material is
in the public domain and may be reproduced
without permission; citation of this source is
appreciated.
Bureau.of Public Affairs
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
Official Business
If address is incorrect
please indicate change.
Do not cover or destroy
this address label. ?
Postage and Fees Paid
Department of State
STA-501
Third Class Bulk Rate
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/03: CIA-RDP92B00478R000800310001-9