The main point made by the President in this interview was that any leader in the Middle East, whose position "is in direct contravention to the position of all the other parties involved including ourselves and the Soviet Union... there would be a great impetus on that leader to conform with the overwhelming opinion". This was not the first time that Mr. Carter made reference to the Soviet Union as a major factor in the peace making process. This was the first time he hinted that public opinion would be against the leader who would stand in the way to peace against the majority's views. Excerpts:
Q. The principles you have enunciated for a Middle East settlement are clearly not accepted by Israel. Why then do we press so hard for a Geneva Conference? Isn't it very likely that if it convenes it will break down?
A. That is certainly always a likelihood. It would be a mistake to assume that the Geneva Conference is going to be easy or brief. But it will be the first opportunity if it materializes for the Arab leaders and the Israeli leaders to meet together in extensive negotiations to understand one another's approach, positions, attitudes and to marshal the opinion of the world on the points in dispute.
I think if a particular leader of one of the countries should find that his position is in direct contravention to the position of all the other parties involved including ourselves and the Soviet Union and was a narrowly defined question in his own country there would be a great impetus on that leader to conform with the overwhelming opinion.
No one can guarantee success. It is a problem that has been extant for 29 years or more. Some say thousands of years. But I think it is a good first step and I think that anyone who would only go with a guarantee of success would probably not take the first step toward peace.
Q. If the conference breaks up in animosity and anger wouldn't that increase the danger of war?
A. That is a possibility. My genuine belief is that all the leaders want peace. They all have a publicly expressed position of flexibility that all items are negotiable. This is our best hope in many years.
Q. If the Israeli position at Geneva should be quite different from yours would you find some means of persuasion or pressure?
A. I don't know. I have to say that our positions that have been spelled out in general terms deliberately are the ones we still espouse.
They have not been completely accepted by the Israelis nor the Arab leaders of course and we can't say yet that they are completely endorsed by the Soviets either. I think there has been a general acceptance of the proposition that the step by step incremental approach is too long, too tedious and leaves unhealed wounds. I think there is a general acceptance of the proposition that we ought to have a comprehensive settlement based on, peace treaties with all the Arab nations and the Israelis being involved together. I can't anticipate now what our position would be. I would try to marshal the support of the leader first of all. Secondly the opinion of his people back home the constituencies that might exist in our own country that would have influence around the world opinion that exists in the European Community and in the Arab nations as well.
Q. Did Mr. Begin tell you that he would drop his opposition to any PLO participation in the Geneva Conference if the PLO were to accept the principle of the existence of Israel?
A. No. Mr. Begin talked to me about Palestinian refugees and in his other statements he has said that he did not object to Palestinians being represented in the Arab delegations or in the Jordanian delegation. When pressed he said in his press conference that if they were identifiable members of the PLO leadership that he would object. He went on to add immediately because the PLO are publicly committed to the destruction of Israel. I can't speak for Mr. Begin (but) if the Palestinian leaders adopted that position (acceptance of Israel's existence) or espoused in the UN resolutions 242 and 338 as a basis for negotiations at Geneva we would immediately commence plans to begin talks with the Palestinian leaders. I hope that Mr. Begin would accept that (the participation of some Palestinian leaders at Geneva) but I don't have any way to predict what he would do.
Q. Mr. Begin announced legalization of the Israeli settlements in occupied territories only a few days after your cordial meeting. It has been suggested in effect he set you up.
A. I think I have read some newspaper reports that said Mr. Rabin accused Mr. Begin of being set up by me. Mr. Begin and I instantly liked each other and trusted each other and we had the frankest possible discussions. We did not mention the subject of legalizing existing settlements. I did not think about it. I reemphasized to Mr. Begin our national position is and has been that the settlements in the occupied territories were illegal. I also let him know that I thought the establishment of new settlements would be an obstacle to peace. And that is a position that we still maintain
Q. Are you getting any indications of flexibility from any of these leaders in private that we are not seeing or hearing in public?
A. Yes. I have had indications from all of them that predicated on future demonstrations of good faith by other nations involved they would be as forthcoming as possible.
Q. If we knew what was said between you and Begin during your private meeting would we be more optimistic?
A. I can't answer that. I think that Mr. Begin has fairly well expressed his opinion in public. There were some private conversations that made me optimistic. I think he also feels optimism.