by Bob Woodward
“Is there going to be peace or not as a result of the agreement between us? Can Jordan sign before, and independently of, the other Arab states? President Sadat is demanding preconditions in any negotiations with Egypt. Syria is impossible. These are the principles on which we are willing to negotiate:
A) Under no conditions will we return to the boundaries of 1967.
B) Secretary Rogers’ proposals are totally unacceptable. When Secretary Rogers visited Israel he told us not to call it the Rogers’ Plan, but to call it the American Plan, since it was drawn up by the entire State Department.
C) Minor border rectifications are out of the question. Changes in our borders must be major, something in the nature of the Allon Plan.
This is what we want and we will negotiate this. Jerusalem must be a unified city, although Jordan can control the Arab holy places. Do you see Jordan making peace? Do you agree with the foregoing proposals, including the border changes?”
King Husayn. “No! We want peace. The principles of the UAK pertain to Jordanian people only. As I told you there are three possibilities for a solution to our problem:
A) A return to the situation as it existed prior to 1967.
B) A complete separation and secession of the West Bank.
C) The establishment of the UAK, which I have proposed.
The latter is the only logical solution for our people. We are now attempting to reorganize ourselves and to persuade the silent majority to say publicly what they have told me privately in support of this proposal. We are also attempting to obtain support from Palestinian moderates living abroad. I did not mention peace in disclosing my plan because the whole plan is based on the premise of peace. We are now a united people in Jordan and the UAK pertains to our own internal situation. I did not specifically mention Israel, but you know that I recognize Israel and your problems. I am not talking about any liberation by force. Regarding the role of Israel, you are a partner in this plan. The Palestinians are at the heart of the problem. The assassination of our late Prime Minister was a deliberate attempt to drive a wedge between the two peoples of Jordan and we expect such actions to continue. Does Israel intend to remain totally isolated? I realize you are sensitive on the question of Jerusalem. So are we. But put yourself in my position. What should I do? I want to gather all the Palestinians together so that they may shoulder responsibility for the development of a peaceful and prosperous Jordan which can be the foundation for enduring peace in the area.”
Mrs. Meir. “We too feel duty bound to wage no wars. No one wins in wars. We must change the borders in order to provide us with the security we require and from which we can destroy or neutralize the plans and actions of would-be aggressors before they can penetrate our home land. Our borders with Lebanon are an example of the type we desire. Such a border can be easily defended with Israel suffering few casualties as has been the recent case.”
Zayd Rafai. “Would a demilitarized West Bank satisfy Israel’s requirements?”
Mrs. Meir. “No, it will not. Even the Allon plan is not entirely acceptable to my cabinet but I can get it approved by popular referendum. Why are the Palestinians now a problem?”
King Husayn. “In the past, the Palestinians were not properly cared for or included in Jordan’s political life. This was a mistake which has to be corrected as soon as possible. In view of your comments, I do not see any point in presenting the Jordanian plan which I have with me. I cannot leave the Palestinians to stand alone, although this might be possible later. I cannot tell my people to give up Jerusalem. I can’t tell my people that their only link with the West Bank is a narrow corridor. I will show you the Jordan paper so that you may have an idea of our thinking.” [See attachment B]
Mrs. Meir. [After reading the Jordan paper] “You really don’t think we could accept this? The part about Jerusalem sounds like a tale of horror which I can’t go into since Jerusalem is not up for discussion. As I said in the KNESSET, how you divide Jordan is your business; but we will not go back to the 1967 borders. I cannot give this paper to my cabinet. In your earlier meetings with Foreign Minister Eban and Jaacov Herzog, they presented you with the Allon Plan and reported back to me that this Plan was unacceptable to you. I did not think it was categorically unacceptable to you, but it appears I was mistaken. In view of this, let us agree that we are not negotiating for peace any more. The territorial aspects of your plan, plus your position on Jerusalem, is unacceptable. But this does not have to be the end. Everything can remain as it is.”
King Husayn. “Are you working for a Palestinian entity?”
Mrs. Meir. “No. All will remain the same. You are young and can reach for the stars and you can be hopeful, but you must be realistic. Are you prepared to make arrangements for quiet cooperation? Are you prepared to:
A) Keep Jordan out of any eastern front command?
B) Not allow Syrian or Iraqi troops in Jordan?
C) Keep the fedayeen out of Jordan?
D) Continue cooperation with us on contingency planning as before?
This is the best we can do. Perhaps I was too optimistic, but I was disappointed in your UAK proposal. Will you make a small agreement with us?”
King Husayn. “Can’t we work jointly to arrive at peace? Do you object to that?”
Mrs. Meir. “We can’t accept your paper.”
King Husayn. “I will continue to work on my plan for the UAK in order to bring the moderate Palestinians together and to isolate and possibly destroy Palestinian extremists.”
Mrs. Meir. “The West Bank is very quiet now. We will continue to keep it quiet. Nothing can be changed without peace.”
King Husayn. “The question of the Palestinians has to be part of any efforts to achieve peace.”
Mrs. Meir. “I want to negotiate only with Jordan, not with the Palestinians, and the question of the Palestinians should not be brought up now. Your plan for a UAK would only create a lot of trouble. The need for peace comes first and you should not undertake any further steps before reaching a peaceful agreement with Israel.”
King Husayn. “Do you have any strenuous objections to my plan to isolate the extremist Palestinians from the silent majority who have come, and are continuing to come, to me in support of my call for unity.”
Mrs. Meir. “I can’t talk in generalities. This UAK plan is not acceptable. How can you rally the Palestinians to support your plan when you cannot implement it?”
King Husayn. “Are you rallying the Palestinians?”
Mrs. Meir. “We haven’t done it yet; we won’t do it tomorrow; but after five years, who knows?”
King Husayn. “Our plan is to get the majority of Palestinians, who are moderate, into one block in order to isolate and destroy the extremists. Do you object?”
Mrs. Meir. “Yes, you will create more extremists. It is dangerous to call a people to a cause that cannot be implemented.”
King Husayn: “When may we expect to receive your plan for a peaceful settlement?”
Mrs. Meir. “The 1967 lines do not exist. If you accept this, then we can talk. We haven’t decided yet how wide the corridor for a link-up between Jordan and the West Bank should be. Our positions are far apart.”
King Husayn. “All right, we will take our paper back and await yours. This agreement does not mean that we should give up. I can’t deceive my people. I either continue to work for peace or withdraw completely.”
Mrs. Meir. “Fine, but if we can’t agree on peace, can you accept these points in principle?”
Zayd Rafai. (Interrupting) “No peace, no guarantees.”
Mrs. Meir. (Ignoring the interruption) “Can you see Jordan entering into a plan for waging war against us?”
King Husayn. “There will be no foreign troops on our soil in the immediate future. We will keep trying for peace.”
Mrs. Meir. “Would Jordan join other groups to fight Israel?”
Zayd Rafai. “Jordan will only act in the best interest of Jordan.”
M
rs. Meir. “Jordan never fought Israel alone. The Arabs are now preparing for war. We do not want Jordan to join them. You cannot be in two camps at once.”
King Husayn. “We always seem to find ourselves in the middle.”
Mrs. Meir. “We can’t even seem to agree on this.”
Zayd Rafai. “Going back to your statement, Mrs. Meir, regarding Arab troops on Jordan soil, what did you mean? No Arab troops forever?”
Mrs. Meir. “I did not say forever. I said for a long time to come.”
King Husayn. “There will be no Arab troops on Jordan soil for the future. When do you intend to provide us with the Israeli plan for a settlement?”
Mrs. Meir. “We will produce a plan outlining the principles and designs which we consider the basis for a settlement. But one final word, Your Majesty, when you are in Washington the question of the Jarring negotiations is bound to come up. Negotiations through Jarring will not lead to anything. The only way we are going to reach a peaceful settlement is through direct negotiations.”
The meeting broke up at this point after Rafai had retrieved all the copies of the Jordan plan.
Attachment B
General Remarks:
We believe that the problem of the Middle East can be solved only through political and peaceful means. We do not believe that war will solve any of the problems of any state in the area. There have already been three wars between Israel and Arab neighbors and nothing was settled by these wars. Their only achievement has been to introduce into the area chaos, anarchy, extremism, revolutions, and coup d’etats. They have opened the area wide to communist expansion. The resources and energies of the area, instead of being directed to the progress and development of its people, have been wasted on the purchase of tools of destruction. Only a just, honourable, and lasting peace can change this unfortunate state in which we find ourselves.
Security:
The kind of absolute security which Israel seeks does not exist in our age--the age of missiles and supersonic planes. At the moment Israel is the strongest militarily in the area; yet, this fact, plus her territorial expansion, has not provided her with the absolute security she speaks of. Security is relative. Perhaps Israel is now more secure than before June 1967, but all relative things change and the balance of power might one day in the future tip in Arab favour. Thus, security is not lines on maps, it is not rivers and canals, but rather the good will of neighbors living together in peace, accepting each other and willing to let each other live within recognized boundries, free from threats or acts of war. This is the type of security we seek for ourselves. We believe it is the type of security you also desire.
Our proposals for the establishment of a just, honourable and durable peace:
1. We believe that the basis for such a peace is the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the occupied West Bank of Jordan, including the Arab sector of Jerusalem. Since neither Israel nor Jordan has ever recognized the 1967 truce demarcations line as a permanent boundary and since we recognize that the line is not fit to be a permanent border--it divides villages into two and it separates villagers from their farming land, etc-- and since no border between Israel and Jordan has ever been recognized--with the exception of the 1947 partition line--we are prepared to enter into direct negotiations specifically aimed at the rectification of the June 5, 1967 line to transform it into a permanent boundary. In this, the guiding principle will be the non-acquisition of territory by force.
2. The West Bank will be demilitarized. No Jordanian or Israeli military forces will be stationed there, with the exception of the Jordanian forces essential for the maintenance of law and order.
3. No Arab troops will be stationed on the East Bank of Jordan.
4. The Palestinian people must be given the chance to exercise their right to repatriation or compensation. A certain percentage of them, to be agreed upon, should be allowed to return to their homes if they so choose. The remainder must be compensated for their losses and resettled in Jordan.
5. We are ready, willing, and able on the above basis, and with the adoption of our proposals for Jerusalem, which follow, to sign a peace treaty with Israel. This treaty will not only end the many years of war but will also normalize the relations between two states living together as peaceful neighbors.
Jerusalem:
Background: Following the six day war and as soon as the Israeli Army occupied the Jordan sector of Jerusalem, Knesset adopted on the 27th of June 1967, a law stipulating that the laws, jurisdiction, and administration of the state of Israel would apply to every region that would be designated by ordinance. The next day the Israeli Government issued an ordinance according to which the Jordanian sector of the city, plus 100 square kilometers of the neighboring area, would constitute a region to which Israeli legislation would apply. On that same day, the Minister of Interior merged the Arab municipality of Jerusalem and the neighboring territory with the Israeli municipality. Even before the adoption of this legislation to annex the Arab city of Jerusalem, and as early as June 11, 1967, the Israeli authorities had demolished 135 homes. Israel went on to expropriate lands belonging to Arab owners and on August 30, 1970 nearly 1200 sections around the city were expropriated. Then came the accelerated construction of a ring of apartment buildings around Jerusalem which included 35,000 dwelling units for future immigrants. These facts show that the Israeli Government is pursuing a policy designed to integrate the Arab city totally and permanently with an administratively unified Jerusalem. No one can contest the fact that such measures might soon lead to an irreversible situation. This, if it happens, will irrecoverably jeopardize any hope for a peaceful settlement.
Proposals:
We believe that the future and fate of Jerusalem, the city of peace with its unique universal character, cannot and should not be decided unilaterally. This city, which has lived through so many ruins and upheavals and for which, over centuries, so much blood has been shed, must fulfill its destiny by becoming the bridge between now divided brothers. We recognize the fact that Jerusalem cannot and should not become a divided city again. It must be an open city, but it cannot and should not be an Israeli city only. We propose that the new border in the final settlement between Israel and Jordan should run around the city on both sides. Both parties will have immigration and customs offices on the outskirts of the city--each on its side. Anyone entering the city from either side will do so unimpeded. Checks will be made on the people leaving the city only. Israelis and Jordanians inside the city will have the freedom of complete movement and residence in any part of the city. The Jordanian sector of Jerusalem occupied in 1967 will be under Jordanian sovereignty and the Israeli sector under Israeli sovereignty. Details of the joint administration of the city can be worked out. For example, there can be either two municipalities and a joint municipal council to coordinate the affairs of the city; or any similar arrangements. Jordanian and Israeli police will be responsible for law and order in their respective sectors.
These are the general outlines of our proposal on Jerusalem. We are, of course, prepared to discuss details and amendments provided they do not affect the sovereignty of Jordan over the Arab city of Jerusalem.
24 March 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Secretary of State
SUBJECT:
Secret Israel-Jordan Negotiations
1. I am attaching a Jordanian paper entitled “The Real Israeli Position Regarding a Settlement with Jordan.” It sets forth rather concisely conclusions which the King has reached regarding the Israeli position after approximately fifty secret meetings with Israeli leaders. While the King and his advisors wish to maintain their contacts with the Israelis to insure some measure of peaceful coexistence, they are convinced at this point that these contacts alone will not lead to a settlement which Jordan can accept.
2. The King plans to present a copy of the attached paper to the President and to seek the President’s observations and recommendations as to “where the King and Jordan
should go from here.”
Richard Helms
Director
Attachment - 1
The Real Israeli Position Regarding a Settlement with Jordan
1. Israel would like to arrive at a peace settlement with Jordan separate from and prior to an overall settlement of the Arab-Israel problem, provided Jordan accepts Israel’s terms for such a settlement.
2. Security Council Resolution 242 is only a working paper. It is not binding in any way. Besides, Israel never really accepted that resolution and any of its interpretations. Most of the principles contained in the resolution are unrealistic.
3. Secretary Rogers’ proposals and the American interpretation of the Security Council Resolution 242 cannot be taken seriously.
4. Israel does not object to talking with Ambassador Jarring but that is all she is prepared to do. Israel believes that Ambassador Jarring, or any other third party, cannot and should not mediate a settlement. Only direct negotiations can solve the problem.
5. Though Israel calls for direct negotiations, Israel has already decided what the terms of the settlement are. Negotiations would only be to formalize the Israeli dictates.
6. The proposal of minor border rectifications is totally unacceptable. There must be substantial changes in the June 5, 1967 line which will greatly expand Israeli territory.
7. Jerusalem is not negotiable. It is the united capital of Israel. The mere idea of Jordanian sovereignty over the Arab sector of the city is unacceptable.
8. The maximum “concessions” which Israel is prepared to make are as follows:
A. Israel will return most of the population of the West Bank to Jordan but not all the territory. Israel will annex the Jordan valley west of the Jordan River, and will permit Jordan to retain a corridor to join the East Bank and the West Bank.
B. Jordan will be given control of the Moslem holy places in the old city of Jerusalem and the right of access to them.
C. Israeli citizens will have the right to settle in certain areas of religious importance in the West Bank.
