Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan’s careless formulation in a Knesset address Thursday, coupled with a Haaretz report today from Washington of a “secret agreement” between the U.S. and Israel threatened to complicate relations between the two capitals. Dayan and his aides today sought to correct erroneous impressions that had arisen from his Thursday speech and to scotch the Haaretz report.
The speech, and the report, seemed to suggest that, beyond the U.S.-Soviet joint statement of Oct. 1 and the U.S.-Israel working paper of Oct. 5, both drawn up in New York, there was an additional secret agreement or understanding in which the U.S. actually subscribed to the known Israeli position rejecting outright any PLO participation at Geneva or any talk there of a third state–on pain of Israel’s immediate withdrawal from the confab.
But officials here told newsmen tonight that there was no such written agreement. What there was, they said, was “clear understanding” by the U.S. of the Israeli position as enunciated by Dayan during his talks with President Carter and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and as recorded in the minutes of those conversations.
The officials indicated that they expected a similar statement to be issued, in answer to question, by an authoritative Washington spokesman. The State Department denied Friday that the U.S. had agreed with Israel on barring the PLO in any circumstances and in keeping the Palestinian issue off the Geneva agenda.
At today’s Cabinet meeting–a brief one presided over by Finance Minister Simcha Ehrlich while Premier Menachem Begin is resting at home–Dayan gave the same explanation to Ministers who wondered at the discrepancy between his Thursday Knesset statement and the State Department spokesman’s reply to questions Friday.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.