In another interview, dealing with the West Bank, Mr. Dayan said that like any other part of the territories held by Israel, the West Bank is open for negotiations and called upon the Arab states to put forward their proposals. Other subjects included in the interview were Israel-America relationship, the role of the United States as a mediator and the prospects of a forthcoming Geneva conference.
Q. Is there any possibility of your negotiating on the West Bank question? Is there any possibility of a state on the West Bank, whether it be under Jordan or under Israel?
A. Absolutely, there is. The West Bank is open for negotiations, just like any other part of the territory, absolutely. The only difference is that in the past the Israelis put forward their own ideas and partition, like the Allon Plan. Now we say, once this was rejected, and totally rejected for ten years, and whatever we suggested, we - Israel - the Arabs did not accept, let them put forward their suggestions and see if we can come to an agreement. But the West Bank is absolutely open for negotiations.
Q. But when you say that, would you say the West Bank was open to negotiations to the degree that Vice President Mondale and President Carter have talked about, which would be the return of almost all the territories occupied in 1967?
A. Yes. Well, it's open to negotiation even for a complete return, not only almost. I wouldn't accept it, just like some of our suggestions will probably be rejected by the Arabs. So each party, when they put a proposal, should take mind that they need the agreement of the other party. I should say that such a proposal, like the one of Mr. Mondale, I for one, wouldn't have accepted it.
Q. Then aren't we talking then about a growing rift between Israel and the U.S. Government, when the U.S. has always been Israel's strongest, and in some cases, its only defender?
A. Well, I think that that's why Mr. Begin will be going to Washington and we shall explain our case. I understand, and I still think, that the U.S. wants to mediate between the parties and the U.S. idea is to get a peace agreement but not necessarily any fixed plan.
Q. Mr. Begin, the new Prime Minister, has asked the three Arab leaders - Assad, Sadat, Hussein to meet to discuss a real peace in the Mideast, as all Prime Ministers before Mr. Begin. The Arabs have refused to meet under these circumstances in the past. If they do not meet now with you, how will you then try to find a peace, if they won't meet with you?
A. Well, Mr. Begin did say that in case they don't want to talk to us directly, then we shall do it through a mediator, and that is the Geneva Peace Conference. He said that we are ready to go to Geneva and that the present government, headed by Mr. Begin will honor the previous agreement, which is going to Geneva and then negotiating with the Arabs through a mediator, that is your people, the administration of the U.S. of America.
Q. With the PLO represented at Geneva?
A. No. It was not there before, and the PLO is not entitled to be there.
Q. But, the Government of Israel is now, for the first time, headed by a man who in the days before Israel's independence was head of an organization that used terrorist tactics. Does that not change Israel's stance vis a vis the PLO, which also used terrorist tactics?
A. No. We are talking about a Geneva Peace Conference, and I don't want to discuss Mr. Begin, my Prime Minister this way, I don't think there's any comparison between him and the PLO. The Geneva Peace Conference states very clearly within Resolution 338 what the subject would be and which parties should take part there, and the PLO was not there in 1973. Everybody knew about the PLO, and no one wanted them to take part in the Geneva Conference, so why should Mr. Begin now change that? I wouldn't support it, anyway.
Q. The Arabs have said - many of them - that if there is not a peace this year, that they expect another war. King Hussein said he expected, and I am quoting, disaster, unquote, if there is not a peace settlement this year. Are we talking about a choice between peace and war in this year?
A. We are talking about a choice between negotiations and a standstill, which is very bad, and I am all for resumption of negotiations, and all of us are for that. I believe that President Carter is for that. He was just waiting for the elections in Israel. He already saw the leaders of the Arab countries and Mr. Rabin, and now he will see Mr. Begin in order to push forward the negotiations. So I think that the choice is between negotiations and standstill which is bad and might lead to a war, and-not between peace and a unintelligible war. Negotiation is an intelligible step, and I believe that as long as we negotiate, there will not be another war.
Q. Your majority of your government is so slim, do you really have a lot of room to negotiate? Do you have strong enough support within your own government to really force a strong negotiating position?
A. Oh yes. That's not a problem. The problem of a narrow majority is in a different field altogether. In order to negotiate we would have the support of the entire house, no problem with that. All of the other parties, the Labor and the Democratic one, would support negotiation, and there is no one within the government that would object to negotiation. Let me put it like that: You know that I do not belong to Mr. Begin's party, and when he asked me to come over to try to serve as Minister for Foreign Affairs, it was just for that, to try to find a man, by his point of view, the best one in the country for negotiation.