(19 of 35)
After everybody had read the document, Begin said, "Sadat's original proposal and this one may decide the future of the people of Israel. There are positive elements in it; there are also some that could cause grave peril to our people." I pressed forward hurriedly. "This document avoids the difficult issue of total withdrawal from the West Bank, it gives you guaranteed access to the Strait of Tiran and through the Suez, freedom of movement of people across the borders, an undivided Jerusalem, an end to the boycott on trade and commerce, and a guarantee against the deployment of any Egyptian attack forces in the Sinai beyond the Mitla and Giddi passes. There are some more things I want for Israel, and may be able to get, including full diplomatic recognition and the exchange of ambassadors between you and Egypt."
We then had a heated discussion about the language in Resolution 242—"inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." Begin insisted again that this formulation was unacceptable. He was angry, and so was I. I replied, "Do you reject Resolution 242? Your definition of its meaning is biased. To delete it would mean that we have no basis for negotiation. What you say convinces me that Sadat was right—what you want is land!" Begin retorted, "The problem of security also involves territory. We are willing to return Sinai; for the time being we are conceding our legitimate claims of sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza."
The same Americans and Israelis met again in the evening. We sat down at 9:35 p.m. We were still arguing at 3 a.m.
Begin said, "Parts of the document are deeply appreciated and positive—a beautiful number [paragraph] on Jerusalem. We appreciate your efforts, but we have a proposal for some changes." Barak began, paragraph by paragraph. The first proposals were to delete all references to Resolution 242.
I interrupted. "This is not the time to beat around the bush, If you had openly disavowed Resolution 242 I would not have invited you to Camp David or called this meeting. Israel has repeatedly endorsed 242, but now you are not willing to respect the language. If you don't espouse 242, it is a terrible blow to peace."
A serious problem developed when we got to the part about autonomy for the Palestinians (or "full autonomy," to use Begin's phrase). As the Israelis proposed alternative language, it became clear that they did not want to give West Bank and Gaza residents any appreciable control over their own affairs.
I declared, "What you want to do is make the West Bank part of Israel." Vance added, "The whole idea is to let the people govern themselves. You are retaining a veto!" Begin responded, "We want to keep the right to do so—but we don't intend to do so." I said, "No self-respecting Arab would accept this. It looks like a subterfuge. We are talking about full autonomy—self-control. You are not giving them autonomy if you have to approve their laws, exercise a veto over their decisions and maintain a military