Conversation 862-010

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

President, it's excellent to see you.

I'm sorry to keep you waiting.

I had a couple of senators I had to get rid of.

I talked too long.

But I hope I won't.

No, no.

I pushed my other people back.

If you would come over here to sit down, sir.

Well, they want a picture of us, so if you would sit here.

Thank you.

I say this to you now because I said we can't tell you.

Otherwise, we would accomplish it.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

I'm sorry.

I'm one of the many people in the White House who has had this with us.

Well, I have mine.

I have mine.

I mean, it's suspicious.

I think it's suspicious.

I think you're going to get some of our matches.

I don't know if you've got any here.

It's a huge.

Virtually everybody went home.

It's rich.

I remember in Cairo that smoking was quite popular in Egypt.

Well, you know, I'm going to tell you this first in a very personal way.

I regret that over the first four years we were unable to make some progress toward normalization of relations.

Because in a very personal sense, I have a, you know, having visited your country and knowing your people, and also having seen the representatives of your country in other nations that I've visited.

And I, I just, I just feel it's a loss to both of us, not at least to have, you know, some more relations.

I'm glad, of course, we do have content, you know, on our social media session.

But I know why we can't.

I'm sorry.

I want you to know that we approach your .

We have no .

I said this .

I'm going to say the same .

But at least what we want, what we want is to talk to you.

We will be talking very frankly with you.

We'd like to see where the game stands in the course of time.

And then see what a big move.

But I want you to know, Michael, I told one of your colleagues here two years ago, Michael,

I mean, all these words are not bad.

I don't say this for the purposes of any words or deeds.

I'm very, very angry.

You know, and I said, frankly, that's what my dad used to say, so I hate that name now.

I do want you to know that we want to talk to you very frankly.

And I appreciate your time.

You must understand.

This is a doctor from my visit, Mr. President.

And now, I wish you the best of luck.

I hope we can get back home very much, come home very much from my visit to the United States.

And we believe that it can be

in connection with the bilateral relations.

And this is very important as a point of start on the way towards the establishment of this agreement.

As to our relations, I would like to see a few words

We consider that our relationships should be balanced.

There should be nothing between us and the United States, and we are seeking the friendship of America, Egypt, at the present time, and as always.

Taking these decisions in time, we are not, Egypt is not.

I invite you to play with me in the future, independent, and on very good terms with all the big boys and small boys.

We believe that everything is the president in Moscow.

And last year, even me and the head writer had a great discussion

We believe that this meeting, as far as it concerns, and the second and the next term of ending the Russian military presence in Egypt, those two events provide the pieces

for the advancement by Egypt towards a normalization of its position.

We feel that Egypt is at the present time in the correct position, in a position that is receptive to a step

Well, we feel that for over 15 years, Egypt and the United States did not see eye to eye with things in the Middle East.

We have our own warrants, as well as institution involvement here or there, but Egypt is proud, I must say,

He is proud of the role that it has played in the Arab world, which promoted Arab independence and promoted the economic and social welfare of Arab youths, of Arab youths.

We feel that this is the normal role played by Egypt.

It has been forced on it.

It had no choice.

King Tartu, on account of the fact that Egypt, with 35 million people of population, with its geographical position in the midst of the Arab world, with its cultural wealth, is influencing the Arab world.

I will interrupt you for one moment.

Uh, one note shows that I'm not on a player, but my first trip to the East, well, to North Africa was in 1935.

And, uh, I went by, uh, it's not in North Africa, but I went through that part of the world in what

was, in fact, the teachings of Egypt.

The teachings of Egypt.

So since we've mentioned the culture, and I've told many people in our national security council here that the, you know, people talk about military power, which is very important.

But the culture, in fact, Egypt, throughout the Arab world, is enormous.

And it's very, very important in my opinion.

And I respect it a great deal.

I want you to know that I know that.

I respect it.

That's another reason we'd like to have a little more contact.

We want to .

When we have, at the present time, tens of thousands of teachers and doctors and engineers or even small men farmers and workers,

I must say that the United States should encourage, rather than

healthy and strong and progressive and independent group of countries can be a good contribution to the world.

It has got its wealth of money and people and it can go on being a partner to Europe, to the United States, to Asia, to Africa.

It cannot be a burden to anyone.

At this moment, one of the problems that we had, it must be quite candidly, but I understand you're not saying it critically, but one of the problems I was hearing in your description at that point was that if you're not relevant, as you might respect it very much, he was a strong man, and not just strong, but I don't think he was good at that.

And then again,

At that time, he was such a strong figure that his neighbors, being much bigger, were afraid of him.

And they thought that each of them, you know, was furious of the revolution and all that sort of thing.

Now, I think that the present situation, Jim Davis, therefore, is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is more stabilizing.

Because I think your neighbors now do not feel that way.

Well, it is what it is, Mr. President.

Rather than back to your question, you know, when I heard someone... That was an accidental speech.

When?

He was good.

May I give an example?

Sure.

For instance, for some friends out there in India,

They would ask for teachers, they would ask for some teachers and doctors from Egypt.

They felt that maybe it was important for something, not only us, but for the Egyptians.

Therefore, they began to use it all.

They did not send it to Abu Salim.

All of them sent it to Abu Salim.

So Egypt was the stabilizing factor.

and constructive, progressive, moral, and constructive, significant, and healthy, and constructive.

And I want to refer back to the church.

once this agent has had a decade of military activities, you understand?

It's great.

So in the scenes of another conflict, another war, of instability and of corruption, of disintegration, to me, I have noticed with great care

The declaration made by the president of the United States about the decade of peace, we have noted that he has worked for peace.

He has brought peace to Vietnam.

We have noted, especially more, that he has given a priority to the Middle East.

The United States, I consider, is an important element.

And without the active participation of the United States to bring about peace, peace can be established in the Middle East.

But I must say, Mr. President, that time is not on the side of peace.

More than a hundred years ago,

And as I said to you this morning yesterday, I would like you to remember between the act of an Egyptian ambassador in Bangkok who went into an Israeli embassy to break out four or five hostages, the 110-kilometer-long

Is that what you want to say?

You saw our statement on that.

These statements will not bring back the people.

I think, however, one point that is impressive to me is that despite the fact that you have continued your journey, we have to realize that

That's the only way we're going to solve it.

I mean, you could have easily canceled going home.

You had the unjustification, but I think that you knew that was a very, now that was that in this country, now this would be in that sub in this country, that would show a very, very good distinction.

I imagine it didn't make you any friends at all.

I went through that myself.

No, Mr. President, I mean, I mean,

We didn't choose the planet.

We were here.

But it's not a human issue here in Mosul.

We felt that we are standing in a very dangerous stage and phase of the confrontation between us and Israel, irrespective of the fact that we are starting a political move

Because we felt that there will be certain parties which will not be in a position to want to stand and to try and dynamite whatever effort we have done or we are doing to dynamite this kind of movement, to try and get some political or military gains out of the situation as they did in Lebanon and Ustrad.

willing to face up to them and to continue, because we don't want our objectives to be defeated by so quickly.

Mr. President, when I'm talking about peace, the time is not on the side of peace.

I want to see the 13 months of ceasefire

whether they are .

We have got to do one of the things .

That was done during the last ten years.

Anything that was obstructing the movement towards peace on the country, we were not at the fore.

We accepted that.

We were patient.

We had not done anything.

What is obstructing this?

I'm not making a case of propaganda.

but Israel does not want peace at the present time because it feels that it has not achieved its goals.

Israel will try to hold on for the next ten years until they get themselves established in the part of the world that is better and may cover more immigrants to strengthen,

I'm going to see if the policy of the United States works.

You don't need to be very concerned because, no, this is a tough issue for us, but I understand.

You feel that because we support Israel with our arms, etc., that makes them more attached to you.

I'm glad both of you are interested in supporting the principality.

I mean, I do not understand.

Because it means to us to enable Israel to vote on our country until we concede to Israel whatever demands it has on our rights and our identity.

And we just cannot understand this.

We feel it is unfair from the United States of America.

For maybe there have been some circumstances.

Because at one time, while the Soviet Union was there, at one time, there was a Soviet military presence.

But at the present time, we do not see any motive, any American motive, genuinely, for the continuation of the war.

I am not seeing any motive.

Tomorrow, the United States will come and say, we are stopping this or that or that.

I'm not getting Israeli support.

But I say that it is high time that the United States

Without it as a preliminary, I don't see how we can get along and move towards our goals.

How do we see it?

Thinking about the six-gallon, ten-kilometers-with-a-throw well.

Little.

Martian.

At least in each of the air.

I'm dreaming about this event.

We are getting nowhere.

the origin of the conflict in the Middle East is a conflict between communities within mandated Palestine

on all sides.

We have two different communities Jewish, as in Israel, and as in Israel.

This is the core of the problem.

This is the problem that has got to be solved.

Because unless we solve it, we shall always have a reason for our end.

How do we get around this?

We think that a country missing each other between Israel and Israel will be

for a solution of the Palestinian problem.

Israel, the Jewish community, was not offered a homeland in Palestine and wherever they were in New York.

We are at the present time on the defense, on the defense, on fighting.

But we are on it.

the invasion and the expansion.

I've got to stop there.

If we don't stop there today, we will go on and on and on.

If we fulfill, if we can realize that this engagement between the warring parties, then

So we have come to attempt demolition of the country.

We will vote to do that.

We haven't talked about this situation yet.

So my, what is my partner, uh, I've been, I've been wanting to say it faster, or it was before in secondary address, and I said Mr. Special Advisor, or Mr. CP, any, any CP, Mr. Dispatch, Mr. Special Advisor.

We called him Mr. Special Assistant.

That's how we actually existed as my official advisor.

We in the meeting kept calling him Mr. Special Advisor, Special Advisor.

I don't know why that wasn't there either way.

As far as I'm concerned, they call me everything.

So we have got to get along with it and see the origin of the conflict and try and get to the roots of the problem and solve it there.

It is the Palestinian problem.

It is a conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.

And when there is a settlement between those two points,

then we are prepared to recognize the new political facts in the area, especially in Palestine or the Middle East.

If we agree on a final objective of the Senate, and that is a commitment to restore to the international

We can add to that, of course, certain security measures, certain peace commitments, international guarantees.

This is a package deal.

This is how the American government presented 68 and 65 of its proposals.

Then we can work out details of how to move towards that agenda.

whether it is in one step, in ten steps, but they must be in phases, balanced, and very, very well linked together so that they will finally lead to power, who you should have to have.

all our strength and i'm pushing towards that final conclusion because if we let those steps go on in years and years

feed and get bogged down and we reach nowhere.

So we have a contract with the final objective.

Our steps were well defined and then the support we got towards that for this job.

Mr. President, questions like, like security, we talk about these very pieces.

Security, when we think about security, we think about the objectives, the aspirations of the Zionist movement towards the establishment of Israel, the expansion, the strengthening, and our experience.

As come as in the minds of people on the other side, they still keep those objectives in mind.

This is the real threat to peace.

On our side, we are on the defense.

We are protecting our lands.

We are protecting our people.

We are protecting the people now in the West Bank, in Tulsa.

They are being liquidated.

They will be in ten years' time, Mr. President.

They will be thrown out of their lands.

When the time comes for Israel to recognize herself as a Middle East country, we are prepared to recognize Israel as a Middle East country.

When I say it recognizes itself as a Middle East country, I mean that it has

It is a country like Lebanon, like Syria, like Jordan, like Egypt that has normal relations with the outside world.

But if it is a country that keeps up those abnormal relations and starts to bring in immigrants and starts to bring in money from contributions and people who can fight for it with this double nationality,

Frenchmen who can get their dream in France, who want to get mobilized in the army.

We are not getting there.

We shall have an agreement, a peace agreement with Israel.

This is for the first time in 22 years.

This is the first time that an Arab

He said, I'm going to have a peace agreement with Israel.

I remember that there was some story about this commitment.

I challenged him to sign a peace agreement with Israel.

And then I put my cards on the table.

And he said, I'm going to sign it.

Security, Mr. President, for us, we see it in the accumulation of the very long range of the development of service-to-service missiles, 500 kilometers, the research work in the atomic category.

There must be a young man, white, there is a massive member of the club sitting across the street.

For security, Mr. President, is being challenged, is challenged, situation challenged with a couple of hundred soldiers.

Or is it a commitment by teachers, guaranteed by the international organization, and then finally powers before 2 or 1?

and then we should be the most, we should show them that we are working with them.

We tell them, they go and negotiate with the Palestinians.

Mr. Rogers says when the Vietnamese are pushing,

Palestine is not correct.

The Israelis, they can negotiate with the Palestinians and they can decide between themselves their frontiers.

What is the future of Jerusalem?

What about the refugees?

But with us, there is nothing to negotiate about.

We cannot negotiate with our land occupied if we can leave the land out

We are prepared to talk to them, but not at the expense of our land.

If a commitment is made about the international borders of Egypt, we are prepared to discuss details of the cooperation, but to sit there and to start discussing

Because we are not allowed to conceive in our 20s or something like that.

I think Mr. President, I have tried to come up with a special responsibility to deter and try to work this situation as we see it in India at the present time.

towards betterment of the religion, because we have no enmity to the testimonies, to the testimonies of our disciples.

We think that we are at the present time in a position

Secondly, we feel that the United States has that big responsibility towards the structure of peace.

It's a superpower, generally speaking, that is responsible for peace and security.

And secondly, because the United States has

And it is in the interest of the United States that peace is there, and stable peace.

Stable peace that can help promote the effective, constructive, and positive relationship between the United States and its countries.

We think that the United States will have the time to come when the United States should

beautiful, even-handed voicing with respect to the children of Israel, to define objectives, to put Israel behind it, and to convince our members that it is in their interest, in all, in the interest of all of us,

We both approach this with a very realistic view.

The question is whether we have

Now the question is, how can we make some progress on this?

Now, regarding your trip and travel, you have received an enormous amount of information.

And I think what we really come down to now is the process of how we work on this problem.

Let me begin first with what our goal is.

Our goal is to work toward finding

is not long enough of procrastinating, and as you have suggested moments ago, a lot of situations continue as it is for five or ten years.

It could continue as it is for five or ten years, but it might not.

That's the problem.

And I'm concerned about that problem.

Also, I'm concerned about the fact that

We're so far apart from the community that it's exciting to potentially expose people.

Because, you know, we're on top of it.

That in mind, we will talk to you about this.

I don't know if you will talk to your friends the same way I can.

We're trying to see whether there is an area where we can go dead center.

And the way that we're seeing it seems to be in dispersion.

I don't want to get into this particular part of the conversation.

We have found in our combat before policy, the China issue, the Russian issue.

the Vietnam initiative, the best way is to do it on two tracks.

Either one can succeed.

One is the public track, basically, where the future of diplomatic channels and so forth.

That, we believe in exploring.

You're meeting the Secretary Rogers.

uh, where the situation stands, uh, see what, uh,

What you suggest is a solution on the basis of, I'm glad to say to you, however, what I have said to you, what I will say to Mrs. Meyer, what I said to her previously, what I will say to her shortly, there's never a settlement based on one side saying, here it is, definitely, there has to be something in between.

Now, when we talk about something in between, let me show you what I'm talking about.

I know you're concerned about sovereignty.

Very much.

And right before you came in, I was talking about the problem with sovereignty.

It involves pride, it involves love, and so forth.

And many part of the problem with security.

So you and I are talking about security and sovereignty.

Can you wait for a moment?

I don't know.

Now, the Israeli position is security versus sovereignty.

And your point is about security from Israel.

That is true to a point.

It may not be with you, of course, but the Israelis are concerned about the more rational ones that are on their boards.

And therefore, that's why they look at other interests.

Let me say, there is no one who

defense uh the israeli at all uh when they engage in what i call overreaction no one indulged under any circumstances what happened on the plane uh it's nonsense to suggest that that was something in case for the french

which I don't like.

On the other hand, we have to realize that such an incident, in fairness to these rights, could not have been ordered by her and Mr. Mike.

She's a very smart woman.

And I think she would be that stupid.

But it does show the problem.

It does show the problem.

The problem is that if there's a pair of ground on our 707 who happens to get out of the line,

that showed you how they had created this field of potential danger in themselves.

There's not so much to do with them.

You've probably heard about the Soviet presence now.

No longer it's evidence of us.

It changes our situation, but particularly with regard to some of their, not so much their rival neighbors, but those elements.

I really know they're always in control, but they are .

What I'm trying to do is to try to let sit in how they feel and how they talk as long as I can .

So first we'd like for you to talk to Secretary Rogers, recognizing one fundamental principle.

We talk about the summit meeting, and somebody has suggested this is going to be at the following summit.

I have a very great skepticism about the summit, even though we've had some of our European friends, the one that came in Moscow.

The reason the one that came in Moscow succeeded is that we did not go there until we knew what was going to come up.

I think it's very important that in this particular time that we not start a process which will raise the hopes, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And that falls apart.

That's also another thing that's why we want each box to be very specific.

So you can talk to the executive writers, support the situation, the expression,

Now, for any kind of private talks to work, they must be told by the police.

And Secretary Rogers will be going to New York tomorrow.

And I expect you will be returning to New York, at least to New York, when you're in New York.

And this must be only the most confidential places, because if the public channels ever are found, it's not a good idea.

Because then we'd have a summit at Tuba Island.

I want you to have a talk about it.

Now, here it is, obviously.

I've heard it.

And you will be very good, you will be very good, shall we say, not antagonist, but shall we say, but the point is, go over the whole thing.

I urge you all at this point.

And in such talks, you can be sure that it goes no further than that.

You don't need to be concerned about saying, well, if we say this, then that's going to be the position, and then we'll market it onto that.

I'll worry about that.

I can assure you that what you say then comes up to me.

And I don't care.

And it's got to come up.

This is my airspace to me.

It goes to me.

It goes to me on both sides.

Then let us see.

whether in that format we can find some way to be helpful.

I don't want to indicate that I don't have a solution.

I've worked on it, you know, and I see what the intermediaries want, and they say this is our solution.

I don't see anything in between.

But the only way to find out

just to have a frank discussion.

I'm going to think a bit about the sovereignty problem.

I thought I'd read you a lot about it, because you're going to talk all day about it.

Sovereignty problems, security problems, how do you resolve them?

How do you resolve them?

Because unless you resolve the sovereignty problems, your demand, your concern about sovereignty and their concern about security, no table, right?

That's really the fundamental thing.

It's split down into two essence.

There are lots of other things, the question of arms and all the rest and so forth.

The second point is this, and I'm not asking, I'm not suggesting that we make any commitment on this, but I'm trying to be a conservative.

We have found in our relations with both the Soviet, for example, became, that we set for ourselves long-term goals, and those we have in our mind.

On the other hand, we realize that right where you have

years of disagreement on the matter, that there must be steps toward that goal.

I know that you're concerned about interim agreements, because you feel that an interim will be fine, and everyone will contend, I understand, by your position representing your government might be exactly the same way.

The other thing, my feeling is that if we say that the only thing that can work here

The only thing that we're concerned is with the parties that sit down and have the final agreement that sells everything.

They'll never get something.

What I think has to be, my own feeling is this is the only contribution I can make to this timeline.

My own feeling is that, is this, that we should determine that there is a timeline to go and commit ourselves to reaching it.

But then, between that,

that we must do some walking before we run.

That's why I would, I think you, I'd like you to explore, uh, your meetings here, and particularly your meeting with Dr. Kinshita, how this could be like a phased basis, you know, a phased basis.

I can only say to you in that caption, speaking of a phased basis, and this is something that I would like you to discuss with me here, and do this,

you have to realize that it's more likely to go to the public sector.

And I think it's the public sector that actually are probably going to affect us too.

But I mean, I can only say that my position is and my goal is as long as I can, as long as

is for a permanent cycle.

It's the one that is not just a half-way cycle.

That is my position.

On the other hand, as a realist, as a crime journalist, I think that while that must be bold, that if we're going to reach that, these parties are so far apart and so forth, that we may have to consider a version of the step along the way.

And maybe you have to reject the proposition.

I don't know.

But I would ask you to keep your mind open until we talk to Dr. Dresinger and see what it is.

The last thing I would say is I still love you.

Yeah.

Well, I think what is really needed here, in a very real sense, though, is your understanding that as far as I'm concerned,

I don't believe that it's feasible at this time.

As far apart as the parties are to say, all right, it's all done.

We'll try.

But then again, I think we should consider how here's our goal down the road to do this.

I mean, that's step by step.

I haven't thought in terms of what the step should be.

I don't even know if it's feasible to do so.

But in all these cases, consider those options.

Consider the possibility of what we could do in terms of an overall thing.

Consider the possibility of step by step.

and let us try to look to a purifying mind and not reduce my mind to this difficult problem of sovereignty and security.

I think what has happened here is that we become the prisoners of our memory.

Both sides will be the same.

So, one says sovereignty, the other says security, and the result is that they overlook the possibility that

Maybe there is, there might be a formula that could be reliable.

And that's what we're seeking.

But let this not be the, let us not consider this to be the mind game.

Let this be the beginning of the process.

I think we should understand that too.

I would like them to go home from here after meeting with Rogers and being a participant in a highest level meeting and reporting residents adopted.

If it can be the beginning of a process of consultation, I think that's important.

Because we can't do it at one meeting.

And I will commit to this, this is very sensitive, because publicly it must be handled at the state level.

On the private level, if there are discussions,

any possibility of encroaching on us.

We will continue to provide it.

We have absolute security on you.

Security is very important.

Frankly, it will raise the doubt on the Israelis, because they, we discussed publicly, they beat us in relations.

And of course, it will cause problems with our public general space.

We'll have a good talk on Sunday, this Monday, and we can then also explore the needs of the day.

This will entice you to message us about expecting a meeting towards the end of March.

We are afraid, but we will not have to do it.

There's nothing expected to happen.

to come to a final conclusion about that first, as you said, this is the first time we consider it as the beginning of a step in a process that we have to continue for some time.

And I can only say, to indicate to you my own will, my daughter,

And I want you to know that sometime in this four-year term, I don't know if this is true or not, but I think this is something that's very true, we understand.

But it's been done on a number of bases.

I'm showing that we are in partnership about seeking it.

We want a relationship so that our countries can have that kind of relationship.

Because until we do, I can't.

Well, he also invited himself.

But unfortunately, he is meeting me halfway between Cairo and Washington next time.

But on that question of diplomatic relations, Mr. President, I think that, well, I heard last night Dr. Kissinger speaking about

I think that every stage exhausts itself.

We shall face up to the needs of the next one and then we can move on.

The need to do something that we have to do in education for us to do.

But we realize that when that comes, that maybe in education we've done something that everybody has.

As you said, Mr. President, we should be doing something that is different from as serious as possible because anybody can do it.

So, or at least that's never been solved, whether it's going on for centuries or not, but at least that you've gone far enough that you can see the down road.

When we meet, they are expecting to go very far during 1973, Mr. President.

I don't know whether we are too optimistic, but this is what we hope in fact it will be.

Thank you very much.

Well, thank you.

Thank you very much.

We are always happy to have you on the show.

We wish you the best.