Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, met with Jimmy Carter, President of the United States of America, at Camp David from September 5 to September 17, 1978, and have agreed on the following framework for peace in the Middle East. They invite other parties to the Arab-Israel conflict to adhere to it.
The agreed basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors is United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, in all its parts.
After four wars during thirty years, despite intensive human rights, the Middle East, which is the cradle of civilization and the birthplace of three great religions, does not yet enjoy the blessings of peace. The people of the Middle East yearn for peace so that the vast human and natural resources of the region can be turned to the pursuits of peace and so that this area can become a model for coexistence and cooperation among nations.
The historic initiative of President Sadat in visiting Jerusalem and the reception accorded to him by the Parliament, Government and People of Israel, and the reciprocal visit of Prime Minister Begin to Ismailia, the peace proposals made by both leaders, as well as the warm reception of these missions by the peoples of both countries, have created an unprecedented opportunity for peace which must not be lost if this generation and future generations are to be spared the tragedies of war.
The provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the other accepted norms of international law and legitimacy now provide accepted standards for the conduct of relations among all states.
To achieve a relationship of peace in the spirit of article 2 of the United Nations Charter, future negotiations between Israel and any neighbor prepared to negotiate peace and security with it, are necessary for the purpose of carrying out all the provisions and principles of Resolutions 242 and 338.
Peace requires respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. Progress toward that goal can accelerate movement toward a new era of reconciliation in the Middle East marked by cooperation in promoting economic development, in maintaining stability, and in assuring security.
Security is enhanced by a relationship of peace and by cooperation between nations which enjoy normal relations. In addition, under the terms of peace treaties, the parties can, on the basis of reciprocity, agree to special security arrangements such as demilitarized zones, limited armaments areas, early warning stations, the presence of international forces, liaison, agreed measures for monitoring, and other arrangements that they agree are useful.
Taking these factors into account, the parties are determined to reach a just, comprehensive, and durable settlement of the Middle East conflict through the conclusion of peace treaties based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 in all their parts. Their purpose is to achieve peace and good neighborly relations. They recognize that, for peace to endure, it must involve all those who have been most deeply affected by the conflict. They therefore agree that this framework, as appropriate, is intended by them to constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and Israel, but also between Israel and each of its other neighbors which is prepared to negotiate peace with Israel on this basis. With that objective in mind, they have agreed to proceed as follows:
In order to achieve peace between them, Israel and Egypt agree to negotiate in good faith with a goal of concluding within three months of the signing of this framework a peace treaty between them.
The exact demarcation of the above areas will be as decided during the peace negotiations.
Early warning stations may exist to insure compliance with the terms of the agreement.
United Nations forces will be stationed: (a) in part of the area in the Sinai lying within about 20 km. of the Mediterranean Sea and adjacent to the international border, and (b) in the Sharm El-Sheikh area to insure freedom of passage through the Strait of Tiran; and these forces will not be removed unless such removal is approved by the Security Council of the United Nations with a unanimous vote of the five permanent members.
After a peace treaty is signed, and after the interim withdrawal is complete, normal relations will be established between Egypt and Israel, including: full recognition, including diplomatic, economic and cultural relations; termination of economic boycotts and barriers to the free movement of goods and people; and mutual protection of citizens by the due process of law.
Interim Withdrawal:
Between three months and nine months after the signing of the peace treaty, all Israeli forces will withdraw east of a line extending from a point east of El-Arish to Ras Muhammad, the exact location of this line to be determined by mutual agreement.
|
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT |
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF Israel |
|
Mohammed Anwar El-Sadat
|
Menachem Begin
|
|
Witnessed by
Jimmy Carter,
President of the United States of America |
Dear Mr. President,
I am writing you to reaffirm the position of the Arab Republic of Egypt with respect to Jerusalem:
|
|
Arab Jerusalem is an integral part of the West Bank. Legal and historical Arab rights in the City must be respected and restored.
|
|
|
Arab Jerusalem should be under Arab sovereignty.
|
|
|
The Palestinian inhabitants of Arab Jerusalem are entitled to exercise their legitimate national rights, being part of the Palestinian People in the West Bank.
|
|
|
Relevant Security council Resolutions, particularly, Resolutions 242 and 267, must be applied with regard to Jerusalem. All the measures taken by Israel to alter the status of the city are null and void and should be rescinded.
|
|
|
All peoples must have free access to the City and enjoy the free exercise of worship and the right to visit and transit to the holy places without distinction or discrimination.
|
|
|
The holy places of each faith may be placed under the administration and control of their representatives.
|
|
|
Essential functions in the City should be undivided and a joint municipal council composed of an equal number of Arab and Israeli members can supervise the carrying out of these functions. In this way, the City shall be undivided.
|
Sincerely,
(signed)
Mohamed Anwar El Sadat
His Excellency Jimmy Carter
President of the United states
Dear Mr. President,
I have the honor to inform you, Mr. President, that on 28 June 1967--- Israel's Parliament (The Knesset) promulgated and adopted a law to the effect: "the Government is empowered by a decree to apply the law, the jurisdiction and administration of the state to any part of Eretz Israel (land of Israel - Palestine), as stated in that decree".
On the basis of this law the Government of Israel decreed in July 1967 that Jerusalem is one city indivisible, the Capital of the sate of Israel.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Menachem Begin
The President
Camp David
Thurmont, Maryland
Dear Mr. President:
I have received your letter of September 17, 1978, setting forth the Egyptian position on Jerusalem. I am transmitting a copy of that letter to Prime Minister Begin for his information.
The position of the United states on Jerusalem remains as stated by Ambassador Goldberg in the United Nations General Assembly on July 14, 1967, and subsequently by Ambassador Yost in the United Nations Security Council on July 1, 1969.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Jimmy Carter
His Excellency
Anwar El-Sadat
President of the Arab Republic of Egypt
Cairo
Dear Mr. President:
I have the honor to inform you that during two weeks after my return home I will submit a motion before Israel's Parliament (the knesset) to decide on the following question:
If during the negotiations to conclude a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt all outstanding issues are agreed upon, "are you in favor of the removal of the Israeli settlers from the northern and southern Sinai areas or are you in favor of keeping the aforementioned settlers in those areas?"
The vote, Mr. President, on this issue will be completely free from the usual Parliamentary Party discipline to the effect that although the coalition is being now supported by 70 members out of 120t every member of the Knesset, as I believe, both on the Government and the Opposition benches will be enabled to vote in accordance with his own conscience.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Menachem Begin
The President
Camp David
Thurmont, Maryland
Dear Mr. President:
I transmit herewith a copy of a letter to me from Prime Minister Begin setting forth how he proposes to present the issue of the Sinai settlements to the Knesset for the latter's decision.
In this connection, I understand from your letter that Knesset approval to withdraw all Israeli settlers from Sinai according to a timetable within the period specified for the implementation of the peace treaty is a prerequisite to any negotiations on a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Jimmy Carter
Enclosure: Letter from Prime Minister Begin
His Excellency
Anwar El-Sadat
President of the Arab Republic of Egypt
Cairo
Dear Mr. President,
In connection with the "Framework for a Settlement in Sinai" to be signed tonight, I would like to reaffirm the position of the Arab Republic of Egypt with respect to the settlements:
|
|
All Israeli settlers must be withdrawn from Sinai according to a timetable within the period specified for the impelementation of the peace treaty.
|
|
|
Agreement by the Israeli Government and its constitutional institutions to this basic principle is therefore a prerequisite to starting peace negotiations for concluding a peace treaty.
|
|
|
If Israel fails to meet this commitment, the "Framework" shall be void and invalid.
|
Sincerely,
(signed)
Mohamed Anwar El Sadat
His Excellency Jimmy Carter
President of the United states
Dear Mr. President:
I have received your letter of September 17, 1978, describing how you intend to place the question of the future of Israeli settlements in Sinai before the Knesset for its decision.
Enclosed is a copy of President Sadat's letter to me on this subject.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Jimmy Carter
Enclosure: Letter from President Sadat
His Excellency
Menachem Begin
Prime Minister of Israel
Dear Mr. President,
In connection with the "Framework for Peace in the Middle East" I am writing you this letter to inform you of the position of the Arab Republic of Egypt, with respect to the implementation of the comprehensive settlement.
To ensure the implementation of the provisions related to the West Bank and Gaza and in order to safeguard the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, Egypt will be prepared to assume the Arab role emanating from these provisions, following consultations with Jordan and the representatives of the Palestinian people.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Mohamed Anwar El Sadat
His Excellency
Jimmy Carter
President of the United states
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I hereby acknowledge that you have informed me as follows:
|
|
In each paragraph of the Agreed Framework Document the expressions "Palestinians" or "Palestinian People" are being and will be construed and understood by you as "Palestinian Arabs."
|
|
|
In each paragraph in which the expression "West Bank" appears, it is being and will be, understood by the Government of Israel as Judea and Samaria.
|
Sincerely,
(signed)
Jimmy Carter
His Excellency
Menachem Begin
Prime Minister of Israel
- Statement by Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg, US Representative to the United Nations, in plenary session, in explanation of the vote on the resolution on Jerusalem, July 14, 1967:
Mr. President, the goal of the United states in the Middle East, one we believe shared by the great preponderance of the world community, is a durable peace and enduring settlement. We conceive of this goal as requiring throughout the area far more than a return to the temporary and fragile truce which erupted into tragic conflict on June 5.
We are convinced, both by logic and the unforgettable experience of a tragic history, that there can be progress toward the durable peace in the entire area only if certain essential steps are taken. One immediate, obvious and imperative step is the disengagement of all forces and the withdrawal of Israeli forto their own territory. A second and equally immediate, obvious and imperative step is the termination of any claims to a state of war or belligerence on the part of Arab states in the area.
These two steps are essential to progress towards a durable peace.
They are equally essential if there is to be substance and concrete meaning to the basic charter right of every state in the area, a right to which the United States remains firmly committed, the right to have its territorial integrity and political independence respected by all and free from the threat or use of force by all.
The United States stands ready to give its full support to practical measures to help bring about these steps --- withdrawal of forces and the termination of belligerent acts or claims as soon as possible.
But if our goal is a durable peace, it is imperative that there be greater vision both from this organization and from the parties themselves. It is imperative that all look beyond the immediate causes and effects of the recent conflict. Attention must also be focused, and urgently;
|
|
on reaching a just and permanent settlement of the refugee problem which has been accentuated by recent events;
|
|
|
on means to ensure respect for the right of every member of the United Nations in the area to live in peace and security as an independent national state;
|
|
|
on measures to ensure respect for the rights of all nations to freedom of navigation and of innocent passage through international waterways;
|
|
|
on reaching agreement, both among those in the area and those outside, that economic development and the improvement of living standards should be given precedence over a wasteful arms race in the area.
|
In each and every one of the separate but related imperatives of peace, we recognize fully that agreement cannot be imposed upon the parties from outside. At the same time, we also believe that the machinery, experience and resources of the United Nations can be of immeasurable help in implementing agreements acceptable to the parties.
The offer of such assistance by this organization is dictated not only by the roots of United Nations responsibility and involvement in the Middle East which have grown deep and strong over two decades, it is also dictated by our common determination, even duty, under the charter to have save succeeding generations in the Middle East from the scourge of another war.
It is against the background of this overall policy that my Government has developed its attitudes toward the question of Jerusalem -- and I wish to make that attitude very explicit:
The views of my government on Jerusalem have been expressed by the President of the United States and other high level officials.
On June 28, the White House made following statement:
"The president said on June 19 that in our view 'There must be adequate recognition of the special interests of three great religions in the holy places of Jerusalem.' On principle he assumes that before any unilateral action is taken on the status of Jerusalem there will be appropriate consultation with religious leaders and others who are deeply concerned. Jerusalem is holy to Christians, to Jews, and to Moslems. It is one of the great continuing tragedies of history that a city which is so much the center of man's highest values has also been, over and over, a center of conflict. Repeatedly the passionate beliefs of one element have, led to exclusion or unfairness for others. It has been so, unfortunately, in the last 20 years, Men of all religions will agree that we must now do better. The world must find an answer that is fair and recognized."
The second statement released on the same day by the Department of State, read:
"The hasty administrative action taken today cannot be regarded as determining future of the places or the status of Jerusalem in relation to them."
"The United States has never recognized such unilateral actions by any of the states in the area as governing the international status of Jerusalem."
During my own statement to the General Assembly, on July 3, I said that the safeguarding of the holy places and freedom access to them for all should be internationally guaranteed and the status of Jerusalem in relation to them should be decided not unilaterally but in consultation with all concerned. These statements represent the considered and continuing policy of the United States Government.
With regard to the specific measures taken by the Government of Israel on June 28, I wish to make it clear that the United States does not accept or recognize these measures as altering the status of Jerusalem. My Government does not recognize that the administrative measures taken by the Government of Israel on June 28 can be regarded as the last word on the matter, and we regret that they were taken. We insist that the measures taken cannot be considered other than interim and provisional, and not prejudging the final and permanent status of Jerusalem. Unfortunately and regrettably the statements of the Government of Israel on this matter have thus far, in our view, not adequately dealt with this situation.
Many delegations are aware that we were prepared to vote for a separate resolution on Jerusalem which would declare that the Assembly would not accept any unilateral action as determining the status of Jerusalem and calling on the Government of Israel to desist from any action purporting to define permanently the status of Jerusalem. However, the sponsors made clear then, as was their right, that they preferred to proceed with their own text in document A/2253, and now with their resolution in A/L. 528, Rev. 2. The latter draft does include changes which we consider represent a marked improvement over the original version, particularly in that it no longer tends to prejudge action in the Security Council. Nevertheless, since the resolution just adopted expressly builds on Resolution 2253, on which abstainal for reasons which we stated publicly, consistent with that vote, we also abstained today. Even as revised, the Resolution does not fully correspond to our views, particularly since it appears to accept by its call for recision of measures that the administrative measures which were taken constitute annexation of Jerusalem by Israel. And because we do not believe the problem of Jerusalem can realistically be solved apart from the other related aspects of Jerusalem and of the Middle Eastern situation. Therefore, the United states abstained. We have of course recently expressed ourselves in a more formal sense by voting for a resolution dealing with the question of Jerusalem. This was the Latin American Resolution contained in document A/L. 523 Rev. 1, which dealt with Jerusalem as one of the elements involved in a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.
It is in the treatment of one aspect of the problem of Jerusalem as an isolated issue, separate from the other elements of Jerusalem and of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, that we were unable to support Resolution 2253. Certainly, Jerusalem, as has been pointed out universally, I think, by every speaker, is an important issue and, in our opinion, one which must necessarily be considered in the context of a settlement of all the problems arising out of the recent conflict. In Jerusalem there are transcendent spiritual interests. But there are also other important issues, and we believe that the most fruitful approach to a discussion of the future of Jerusalem lies in dealing with the entire problem as one aspect of the broader arrangements that must be made to restore a just and durable peace in the area. And we believe consistent with the resolution we were ready to sponsor, that this Assembly should have dealt with the problem by declaring itself against any unilateral change in the status of Jerusalem.
Mr. President, since we are approaching the end of this session on this important subject, in which remarks were made not relating specifically to Jerusalem but ranging very broadly on other subjects, I cannot let this occasion pass without reference to some of the allegations made regarding my Government's role in the recent conflict in the MEast. The charges that the United Stinstigated, encouraged or in any way participated in this tragic struggle are too unfounded to dignify by individual comment. I dealt with many of these falsehoods explicitly in the Security Council and will not take the time of the Assembly to go over the same ground here. I reaffirm what I said tthe security Council with respect to each and every one of there charges. I will merely say that one positive note in this session has been the abandonment of the most vicious falsehood of all - which could have been productive of the most disastrous consequences that the United States planes and military personnel participate in the war on the side of Israel. Before the war broke out we sought prevent it by all means at our command. And once it began, we did everything in our power to bring it to an early end. The record of our diplomacy is very clear in this matter, despite comments which have been read from newspapers which scarcely characterize that diplomacy. And the record of the Security Council is plain and clear for everyone to read as to the actions we took, supported and initiated in the Security Council to bring the conflict to and end.
There is one charge about our position to which I believe no nation in this hall faithful to the charter would feel any necessity to plead. That is the charge that we supported the right of every sovereign state member of the United Nations to an independent national existence, its right to live in a spirit of peaceful coexistence and good neighborliness with all in the area. That is a charge which the charter of the United Nations places on us all and which we should all readily accept and acknowledge.
Our view has remained steadfast- before, during and now, after the conflict. We extend the had of friendship to all states in the Middle East and express the fervent hope that as time heals the scars of war we can soon again join our common efforts in helping build a better, more enduring order in every state and throughout the area, with peace, justice, security and liberty for all.
Mr. President, so much vituperation has taken place in this Assembly so unseemingly in a world forum, that I could not help recalling today a statement made by my distinguished predecessor who died two year ago today in the cause of peace, Adlai Stevenson. Adlai Stevenson, talking about our beloved Eleanor Roasevelt, said, "She would rather light a candle than curse the darkness". And I share that spirit. I do not see that anything is gained in the cause of peace in the Middle East by the vituperation which has taken place, vituperation not only against my country but against other, small countries, vituperation which has no place in this forum.
The time has come- indeed, the time is long overdue- for vituperation and bitterness to be tempered by sober realization of the difficulties ahead and the willingness to face them squarely and to do something about them.
What is needed is the wisdom and statesmanship of all those directly concerned and the members of the United Nations so that conditions of hate, too much ventilated in this hall, can be eventually replaced by conditions of good neighborliness,
What is needed above all in the area is a spirit of reconciliation which will someday hopefully make possible a peace of reconciliation: I fervently hope that all in the area and all in this hall will approach the days ahead in this spirit.
- Statement by Ambassador Charles W. Yost, Us Representative to the United Nations, in the Security Council, on the situation in Jerusalem, July I, 1969:
Once again the Council has been summoned to deal with certain actions taken by the Government of Israel in Jerusalem. We have listened carefully to the statements of the permanent representative of Jordan and other Arab Ambassadors, as well as the reply of the representative of Israel.
The discussion thus far has made amply clear that the status of Jerusalem is not an isolated problem, but, rather, an integral part of a whole complex of issues in the current Middle Eastern conflict which must be resolved. This is not a novel conclusion. The Council clearly recognized that fact in Resolution 242, which treats the entire Middle Eastern situation as a package. This resolution remains the basis of our approach to a just and lasting peace in the area. You are all well aware of the strenuous efforts my own government is making to help Ambassador Jarring promote a peaceful settlement. Progress in these efforts has, admittedly, been slow. This is perhaps not surprising when one reflects on how deep the roots of the conflict go. But the important thing is that some progress is being made. The fact that it has not been crowned with dramatic success should not give grounds for despair. Nor should it be exploited as justification for actions, which will make greater progress even more difficult. This applies to actions in Jerusalem as elsewhere in the area. Indeed, Jerusalem occupies a very special place in all our minds and all our hearts as one of the holiest cities in the entire world. For Jerusalem is a sacred shrine to three of the world's largest and oldest religious faiths: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. By virtue of that fact the United States has always considered that Jerusalem enjoys a unique international standing and that no action should be taken there, without full regard to Jerusalem's special history and special place in the world community. Unfortunately there have been acts of many kinds which have broken the peace in Jerusalem and which are of deep concern to my government and to the international community. Mr. President, we understand the deep emotional concerns which move all parties to the Arab-Israeli dispute on the subject of Jerusalem. We do not believe, however, that any of these concerns are served by what is now taking place in East Jerusalem, whether it be actions by those now exercising authority there or by individuals considering themselves aggrieved and therefore justified in resorting to violence. The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in the city. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June War, like other areas occupied by Israel, is occupied territory and hence subject to the provisions of international law. Governing the rights and obligations which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interest, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the Customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by immediate needs of the occupation. I regret to say that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present a different picture, one which gives rise to understandable concerns that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced and the rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered.
My government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize these measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem.
I have explained in some detail the opposition of the United states to certain measures taken by the government of Israel in Jerusalem, since this is the precise object of the complaint brought before us by the government of Jordan. But, as I suggested earlier, we cannot land intelligently consider the problem of Jerusalem without putting it in its proper perspective -- the Middle East situation as a whole. In this connection, I would recall that one of the first major policy decisions taken by President Nixon after assuming office this year was that the united States government should take new initiative in helping to try bring peace in the Middle East. for several months we have been devoting our best efforts to this task. We shall continue to do so, but for these efforts to succeed we will require the goodwill and cooperation of the parties themselves. A just and lasting peace in the Middle East is long and tragically overdue. It will not be found through terror bombings, which inevitably harm innocent civilians, any more than through unilateral attempts to alter the status of Jerusalem. It will be found only the instruments and processes of negotiation, accommodation and agreement. It will come only through the exercise by the parties of the utmost restraint - not just along the cease-fire lines or in public statement, but also on the ground in Jerusalem itself.
In treating the problem of Jerusalem, since we deal with it in the context of the total situation in the Middle East, my delegation will subject any proposal for Council action, first of all, to the test of whether that proposal is likely to help or hinder the peaceful settlement process. I hope all members will do likewise. For example, one constructive move the Council might make would be to request the parties to lay aside their recriminations, to desist from any action - in Jerusalem or elsewhere that might be construed prejudicing or prejudging a final, comprehensive settlement, a just and lasting peace. Thus, our consideration of the situation in Jerusalem could provide a fitting occasion on which to insist once more that the parties to a dispute which keeps the world's holiest city in turmoil act responsibly to resolve the whole dispute and, until it is resolved, that they take no action anywhere which could further Jeopardize resolution.