In a far ranging interview, most of it devoted to foreign policy issues, Mr. Begin discussed relations between Israel and the U.S. and various European nations; he also reviewed his talks with President Carter and the results of his visit to Rumania, relations with South Africa and France and also touched upon domestic issues. Text:
Q. The Government is preparing, according to the press, a draft treaty of peace. Can you give us the principles of the treaty?
A. I must correct the question. The Government has already prepared the draft of a peace treaty, and the Foreign Minister, when he is in the United States in two weeks' time, will discuss the content of this peace treaty with the Secretary of State. We have, indeed, prepared, for the first time since the establishment of the State, a peace treaty between ourselves and Egypt, and its content will also apply to Jordan and Syria and, as we agreed in our talks in Washington, if necessary to Lebanon as well. I want to stress the excellent work done in this field by decision of the government by the legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, Mr. Rosenne, by the Attorney General, and by the committee that was authorized by the government, which consisted of the Foreign Minister, the Defence Minister and the Minister of Agriculture - and I, too, naturally, took part in the deliberations of this committee. We built the peace treaty on the basis of the well-known precedents after the two world wars, as well as on other precedents, as we read and studied the documents.
Accordingly, the first article in the peace treaty which we are submitting is: "The state of war is hereby terminated." This is one of the accepted formulations according to international law. There are also other terms, such as "cessation of state of war," or "The state of war has come to an end." We chose this term.
After this article, which, of course, gives the principal content of every peace treaty, including the draft submitted by us, come the other articles, namely: The establishment of diplomatic and consular relations, economic relations, movement of populations, the solution of the problem of the refugees, offsetting of obligations of both parties, in regard to property that is, in connection with the fact that there are Arab refugees and a fact which has been forgotten recently, and we are raising it again, namely. Jewish refugees - I refer to our brethren from the Arab countries, whom we, of course, welcomed with open arms in our country, but they were robbed of all their property. And there are all the other articles involved in a peace treaty.
Of course, there is the important problem of determining the frontiers, and we have submitted clear proposals in accordance with the principles presented in the private conversation between the President of the United States and myself during my visit to Washington. We have requested the Secretary of State that the ideas we submit to him be kept for the knowledge of the U.S. government alone and shall not be transmitted to the Arab states.
Everyone will understand why I cannot go into detail in public on the territorial problem. The Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee knows exactly what we have submitted, both because we brought to its knowledge the document the content of which I submitted to the President of the United States, and also because the peace treaty, with the covering letter, has been brought to the knowledge of the committee.
Q. Do you attach maps, Mr. Begin?
A. No, there are no maps. The frontiers will be determined in negotiations between ourselves and our neighbours. We have only brought to the knowledge of the President of the United States - as well as now, in the covering letter to the peace treaty - the principles on which we base ourselves, but the maps will be drawn after the negotiations with our neighbours are successfully concluded, and then they will constitute an annex to the peace treaty. But that will be a further stage. We have, thus, presented these principles for the second time, and the Foreign Minister will discuss these principles with the Secretary of State.
We are also aware that the Secretary of State has also asked the Arab states for a model peace treaty. They have given him no undertaking that they will supply such a document, and it is possible that the Arab states will only supply principles. We shall know about this in two weeks' time. We preferred, in view of our attitude, to submit a complete peace treaty, and the discussion and negotiations will take place on this.
Q. Is there any basis for the reports that the Foreign Minister has met King Hussein of Jordan? How do you visualize the partition of Judea and Samaria that Israel will agree to discuss, according to the Foreign Minister, if such a proposal is submitted by the Arabs?
A. As for the first question, be good enough to submit it to Mr. Dayan or to King Hussein.
As for the second question, that was not what the Foreign Minister said. I should like to point out that he said what he said with my agreement and approval. He said this: There is a debate in the House in connection with what is called "Partition," through "Territorial compromise," of Judea and Samaria. It is a futile debate. Were the Arabs to submit such a plan, we would consider it and we would decide. He said "were" - he did not say "if," But he pointed out that there is no such proposal, and he knows what he is talking about. There is no such proposal and there never has been. And now you have confirmation at the Foreign Minister's conference in Cairo. What did they decide yesterday? An Israeli withdrawal to the lines of the 4th of June 1967, including withdrawal from East Jerusalem, namely total withdrawal. This is the Arab plan and there is no other proposal on their part. Therefore all the debate in the House was completely unrealistic. There is no foundation for it. That was what the Foreign Minister said.
Q. What is your reaction to criticism by Gush Emunim of the slow pace of settlement and statements that Gush Emunim groups would settle even without government approval?
A. The day before yesterday I met the Gush Emunim people at Maale Adumim and I did not make a speech. My silence received more publicity than all my speeches. I think that anyone who speaks or writes is entitled, sometimes, to abstain from speaking or writing. In regard to settlement the government has taken decisions, the government will consider these matters. Our position is clear: We do not recognize the concept of "Illegal settlement" in Judea and Samaria. We recognize the right of every Jew to live in any part and in any place in the Land of Israel. We have left no room for doubt. In the conversations with the U.S. President and the Secretary of State, that this is our position. We will take the appropriate decision at the time when we, as the responsible body, think fit.
Q. Will the government acquiesce in settlement that has not been approved in advance by the government?
A. That is a hypothetical question. When it arises we shall consider it. There is no point in going into hypothetical questions.
Q. In one of your talks with President Carter he proposed keeping in direct touch with you either in writing or by telephone. I should like to know with what frequency this line has been used since then.
A. I have sent the President two messages and received three messages from him. We have not yet had any telephone conversations. But we have been in touch and we shall continue to be. I received the third message from the President just before I left for Rumania. It was a confirmation of the message I sent him when I left the airspace of the United States on my way home, and in this letter he writes "That we have established a personal close relationship." I said so on my return from the United States, and now the public can read that this is the opinion of the President of the United States, such a relationship is to be welcomed. I hope that both of us will use it whenever necessary.
Q. Have you decided on a procedure for such occasions?
A. No, but the President told me, in a personal talk after the conclusion of all the conversations, when we were alone - in this conversation he proposed this approach, that is, "we shall remain in touch: You can write to me, telephone me." But I have not exploited this offer - I don't think it has been necessary. We can get in touch at very short notice by letters sent through our Ambassador, who can ask for a meeting with the President, or by our inviting the U.S. Ambassador. It takes only a few hours for letters to reach Washington or Jerusalem, so there is no problem of delay in establishing touch.
Q. What is the attitude of King Hussein towards the PLO and the Middle East dispute as you understand it?
A. (You asked) how I understand King Hussein's position. Well, I understand it more or less. He has no love for the organization called P.L.O. He proved that during a certain September... as for his approach, he pursues the general Arab line. Hussein insists on total Israeli withdrawal - including the handing over of the Old City of Jerusalem and East Jerusalem to what is referred to as Arab sovereignty. That is his position. He did not change it ten years ago, he did not change it when he was approached with certain plans, and I believe there are grounds for saying that he has not changed it to this very day.
Q. Do you believe that he also rejects outright the proposal attributed to the Foreign Minister, which is known as "functional compromise?"
A. I can't answer that. I don't know.
Q. Why the delay in manning the vacant portfolios in your cabinet? When do you propose to man them? And, in your evaluation, is the D.M.C.'s joining the government only a question of time, as has been stated recently?
A. I can now tell you that tomorrow morning there will be a meeting in my office between Prof. Yadin and myself -one might say, we will be starting the working day with that. We shall be meeting at 8 a.m. tomorrow, and I shall be conveying certain things to him - it would not be seemly that I make them public before I see Prof. Yadin - in the hope that the D.M.C. will join the government. Let me say that all of us in the government would like the D.M.C. to join. If there is a positive response, we shall man the portfolios with the candidates put forward by the D.M.C. And should this come about, say, by the beginning of next week, or between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur - we may conceivably find the suitable day between the two festivals - we shall convene a special session of the Knesset in order to present for its approval, as required by law, the manning of the portfolios. Should the D.M.C. decide, heaven forbid, despite our having moved some distance further towards the D.M.C., not to join - the decision, after all, is up to the D.M.C. - we shall obviously man the portfolios (with further delay). It is simply out of the question that they not be filled by the opening of the Knesset's winter session. You must appreciate that the head of the Liberal Party is now in the United States on a official mission. There are serious issues, requiring negotiation, within the Likud factions as well - and that will also take some time. But one way or another, we are agreed that the government will present itself to the Knesset for the winter session with all the Ministries manned.
Q. Am I correct in detecting a note of optimism in your voice?
A. I cannot confirm that. All I can say is that we are making another joint effort to go a considerable distance to meet the demands of the D.M.C. I assume they will appreciate this, but, as I have said, the decision is up to the D.M.C., and we shall know in a few days what their decision will be.
Q. Are you or the government making an effort to establish diplomatic relations with countries with whom we have none at present? Recently we have heard about India. Secondly, what is the relationship that you envisage with South Africa?
A. We want to renew diplomatic relations with all the countries that broke them off, and that is the function of Mr. Ehud Avriel in the Foreign Ministry. This is a continual effort. For instance, I received a message from the ruler of a certain African country, and he, on his own initiative, mentions the fact that we have no diplomatic relations at present, but he hopes that they will be restored. I was glad to hear this, but for the time being this is only a promise.
As you know, when I presented the government, I said that we want normalization of relations between ourselves and the Soviet Union, but it was the Soviet Union that broke off relations with us on the eve of the Six-Day War, and it must take the initiative to renew them. If it takes such an initiative, we shall agree to renew diplomatic relations. Of course, we shall demand that every Jew shall have the right to come to the Land of Israel without let or hindrance, and - which is also self-evident - the liberation of all prisoners of Zion. But we are interested in normalization with the Soviet Union. It is a fact that we have normal diplomatic relations with Rumania. True, this is the only East European country which has such relations with us, but obviously it is to the advantage of both parties.
As for South Africa, we have good relations with South Africa, and we shall continue to maintain them. I don't think we need to hide this fact - I should like to point out that we are against any form of racism - we shall not reject any hand that is held out to us. Israel is a small country, surrounded by enemies, threatened, and if another country wants to maintain relations of understanding with us, we shall accept the outstretched hand. These are our relations with South Africa, that is how they should be, in my opinion, and we must say so to every person in Israel and also abroad - without hiding the fact.
Q. What will be the attitude of the Government if Gush Emunim establishes settlements without waiting for specific government decisions?
A. I reiterate our principle: Every Jew has the right to settle anywhere in the Land of Israel. This is our faith, and we shall stand by it in debates with people at home, with people abroad. We have no intention whatsoever of changing this position. The principle is correct. But we must not forget that there are also practical problems of security. And therefore I assume that the pioneers of Gush Emunim will also want a government decision.
Q. You frequently remind the opposition that for ten years they have tried various kinds of compromise without success. Do you think this government's plans will bring about a change of attitude?
A. The government that was said to believe in the Allon plan tried it for ten years in two directions: With the Arabs and with the United States. The Arabs rejected it outright - until yesterday in Cairo - and the Americans rejected it, until that letter which was sent two days ago by the State Department spokesman. To come to us today and complain: Why don't you accept the plan for territorial compromise in Judea and Samaria? As if the Alignment, on the basis of this plan, had brought us peace. And it is not a question of two months - we have been here for two months and two weeks - but of ten whole years, an historical era. We contend that this plan has only one result: pressure for further withdrawals. They were told: You are prepared to withdraw, aren't you, in all sectors? What you are prepared to do does not bring peace. If you want a peace settlement, we should soon approach the June 1967 lines, with, perhaps, minor adjustments.
We have changed this policy. We have different principles, as I have brought them to the notice of the President of the United States, as we recorded them in the covering letter to our draft peace treaty. And we stand by these principles. Of course, there are differences of opinion. Only someone who has not studied the matter can fail to be aware that all negotiations for a peace treaty have started with differences of opinion. For instance, after World War I, the negotiations between the Allies and Turkey took almost six years... and in that case, there were not the problems that exist between ourselves and the Arabs.
After all, the problem between ourselves and the Arabs is not a territorial one at all. If it had been a problem of that kind, why did they not make peace with us for 19 years, when we did not hold the Old City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights or Sinai or Judea and Samaria? Now they try to create the impression that that is the problem, but it is not so. The fact is that the conflict is, in the full sense of the term, historic. They did not want a Jewish State. We can say the same today after Assad's statement a few days ago to Mr. Ochs of the "New York Times," that they still do not want a Jewish State. Assad said: "If you ask any Arab citizen, he will tell you that he wants the State of Israel to disappear." He added, it is true, that if you ask any Israeli, he will tell you that he wants the elimination of the Arabs - but Assad has no right to speak in the name of our people. I am sure that no Israeli citizen says so, and we do not want any elimination of the Arabs. But Assad was entitled to speak for his people. And we may assume that they still do not want a Jewish State. That is the real root of the conflict, and of course it is difficult to see how to reach understanding. It will take time. That is why I said, at the state banquet in the White House, that we need a sense of urgency and we also need patience. A peace treaty is not an easy thing to attain, when there are differences of opinion like these. I believe with implicit faith - here we are on the threshold of a new year - that the day of peace will come. The one thing that is inevitable is peace. There are historical proofs of this fact in every part of the globe. In the end, the day of peace is bound to come - and it will come. I believe that the government's policy leads towards serious consideration of peace treaties - not interim agreements, which mean only one thing: Israeli withdrawals without peace, once more, twice more, always without peace, without even the ending of the state of war, of which so much has been said - but a serious discussion of peace treaties.
Q. Without territorial concessions either?
A. What is the meaning of territorial concessions? The territorial content of a peace treaty is a matter for negotiation. But we have already had experience of prior statements about territorial concessions. Have they brought us peace?... We are trying a different political policy. As they say in popular language, give us a chance. We have only just started. In two months, can we change all the things that have been done wrong in ten years?
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, not so long ago you surprised the press and the public with your trip to Rumania. Where do you intend to surprise us in the near future?
A. In the first place, if I surprised you, I beg your pardon. I promise to make every possible effort so that you won't be surprised. I have a visit scheduled in the near future I can't tell you exactly where at this time - in a certain country. But it is not in Eastern Europe: That I can tell you.
Q. In Western Europe, perhaps?
A. Well, if we take this route or that, you will arrive along with me at the country I am to visit. But it will be a very interesting visit. It will take place in the near future. The two governments have decided that it is better to wait until the date of the visit is fixed before it is made public. So here you already have something on account in anticipation of the surprise. But I didn't surprise you with my visit to Rumania. If the reporters don't read their papers, what can I do? It was published in all the papers that the Rumanian Ambassador called on me one day and brought me an invitation from the Prime Minister of Rumania, and then we made the matter public...
Q. Which ambassador has been to see you lately with an invitation?
A. Several ambassadors.
Q. Ever since the political upheaval in May and the formation of the present government of Israel, there have been reports of several shifts in the American position, and not all of them negative from Israel's point of view. For instance, President Carter spoke of the "Densification" of the existing settlements and there has been talk of American feelers concerning the possibility of an Israeli trusteeship regime in Judea and Samaria for a brief period. I assume that Israeli policy does not aim at a trusteeship in Judea and Samaria, but why couldn't such ideas serve as a basis for negotiations, which seems to be a more convenient starting-point than the American position of the past ten years.
A. I thank you for putting this question. It confirms my statement in the Knesset and at a session of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee - that, in March there was really something like a confrontation, and that was before the elections. I think we are making a not unsuccessful effort to correct the confrontation which took place prior to the elections, and this requires an effort.
The two matters you mentioned are correct, but what can we do if a trusteeship such as you spoke of is connected with a so-called "Palestinian" unit, or entity? We said frankly: All these proposals lead to only one result: The establishment of a Palestinia state, an Arafatist state, a P.L.O. state, and that is a threat to the very existence of the state of Israel. Therefore we utterly and explicitly rejected the plan in toto, including that part of it which speaks of a trusteeship regime and the United States Government is aware of this.
And I am pleased that, despite all the difficulties the opposition had to wrestle with, it was shown in the recent Knesset session that on this issue there is truly a national consensus, except for the Communists and, perhaps, Shelli - though Shelli abstained, it didn't vote nay - the entire Knesset, all the Zionist factions are united in rejecting negotiations with the murderers' organization called P.L.O. and the establishment of a Palestinian-Arafatist state in Judea and Samaria. In this, we are literally expressing the will of the people. We shall continue to express it, and should there be differences of opinion, these differences will stem from the policy of other countries. For other countries this is a question of policy - they have a certain policy - but for us it is a matter of life, of the life of our people and our children, in the plainest and deepest meaning of the question. And that is why we know we are right, and insist on our case.
We shall not conduct negotiations with the P.L.O. murderers and we shall not agree to a Palestinian-Arafatist state. Negotiations should be conducted with our neighbours on peace treaties, and every party to the negotiations will put forth his proposals. There is nothing new in this, this is the custom everywhere. In accordance with this procedure, negotiations must be held with a Jewish State and it must not be made an exception to all the accepted rules, these rules must be applied to it, too, to the Jewish state.
Q. If the Americans were to put forth the idea of a trusteeship for a considerable period - could this idea in that case be a basis for negotiations?
A. Very well, you may put that question too. We do not accept the idea of a trusteeship regime - in fact, no one knows exactly what it entails, and it was a brief period of years that was in question. But this is not the main thing: The cardinal point is the result. Does a nation live on five years of borrowed time? And would ten years of borrowed time be a different proposition? We must see to it that our grandchildren will also live - I don't know if you have grandchildren, but I already have eight, may their number increase and we must also see to the coming generations. What nation will agree to live on ten years of borrowed time? we must ensure the future of the nation, its peace and security - and this proposed trusteeship regime is bound up with the establishment of a Palestinian entity, a homeland for the Palestinians, a national home for the Palestinians - whatever name you want to give it, they all lead to one result: An Arafatist state, a state which will endanger the very existence of the Jewish state, a state which will become a Soviet base, with Soviet artillery, with Soviet advisers in Bethlehem, with virtually our entire civilian population coming within range of their conventional weapons. Can we even imagine the extent of the threat that will overhang us? every man, woman and child in danger of being shelled, of being killed, by day and by night: At every moment. What responsible government could permit such a situation to come about?
Let me perhaps quote Mrs. Golda Meir, who, after the Rogers Plan was submitted to her, said to the correspondent of the "New York Times" - I remember her very words, I was a member of the cabinet at the time: "Any government of Israel that accepted the plan known as the Rogers Plan would be betraying its people." This an extremely grave statement. For my own part, I do not like using that word in connection with policy. Of course, there are sometimes traitors among every people and they are placed on trial. On political matters, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, and I shall not describe someone who thinks differently from me as a traitor. He has the right to hold his own view. But let us examine these conditions rationally, intelligently, and we shall see to what extent they imperil not only our independence but our very lives and existence. Therefore we did not accept that proposal. I trust that there is no one in Israel who would accept such proposals.
And it is good that the world is aware of this from the outset. I believe that if the world knows from the start that this is our view - particularly if it has strong public support - this will ward off pressure.
Q. As regards Western Europe: Are you optimistic about the prospects for improving relations with France? Would you like to pay an official visit as Prime Minister to England? and would you be prepared to meet with official personages from West Germany?
A. As to France: There was once a Franco-Israel alliance, which was annulled on the eve of the Six-Day War, and since then French policy has been totally negative. We should like to see a change for the better. We have very devoted - and highly influential - friends in France. True, political decisions are, in line with the French - Gaullist - constitution, in the hands of the President, and therefore our friends can only try to exert influence: They cannot take decisions. But we have friends within the government, in Parliament, and virtually the entire French public supports the State of Israel. And therefore an effort must be made to bring about a renewal of the friendship - and, if possible, a resumption of the alliance as well. This of course depends on the reply of the other side. As to a visit to France, I should of course be ready to undertake it if I am invited. It is not true, is one paper wrote, that I am making all kinds of efforts to wangle an invitation. I do not need to make any efforts. I am Prime Minister of Israel, and if my counterpart, the Prime Minister of France, invites me, I shall go. And if he does not invite me, I shall first of all stay at home - which I take pleasure in doing - and I shall go to those countries to which I have been invited. I have to date received no French suggestion concerning the date for an invitation. If I receive a letter from my counterpart the Prime Minister of France, inviting me to visit France - and if we arrange a date together - I shall, of course, reply in the affirmative.
As to Britain: I shall certainly be happy to visit there. That would be a very interesting visit. I shall be pleased to visit there.
And as to Germany: I have not changed my mind as regards that agreement which was signed between the German people and the Jewish people in the generation of the Holocaust. My opinion was negative and has remained unaltered. In my view, no such agreement should have been signed. But it is now a fact, and we have regular, normal relations - as the phrase goes - with Germany, and in the light of this I shall fulfil my official public duty as I have been charged to do, and if my official duty demands that I meet with a German representative, I shall do so.
Q. Around this time, the hundred days' grace given any government from the outset is drawing to an end. Have your expectations been fulfilled concerning the initial functioning of the government? And in the same connection: Do you think the opposition leader, Mr. Shimon Peres, is fulfilling his role as an opposition leader should?
A. The idea of the hundred days is of American origin. Can we within one hundred days set right all the distortions brought about by the Alignment over a period of twenty-nine years? Who even dreamed of doing that? Even a year won't be enough. But I, at least, in all fairness appealed to the Knesset and the public at large: Give us a year, one year out of four, and I trust the public will show patience. We want to correct the policy and the economy and social conditions. Let me illustrate: We shall make every possible effort to solve the problem of poverty, especially where housing is concerned. Poverty is a disgrace to Israel, and certainly to the socialists who let it remain or created it. Forty-five thousand families are living under inhuman conditions. A ten-member family living in one-and-a-half rooms: How can they lead a civilized life, a family life, how can children study like that? We want to solve this problem, and I have proposed - and this is about to be carried out - that we call upon the Jewish People, in the thirtieth year of the renascence of Israel, that all the donors double their donations and that everything above the amount they usually give be directed towards that end.
We have started. Last Thursday we had a meeting with the U.J.A. mission from the U.S. and Canada. I made this appeal and we raised twenty-three million dollars in the course of one evening: Five million dollars more than they pledged a year ago. Thus, we have an initial amount - though still insufficient - which is earmarked for that goal. And I hope we shall get the amount required so that we can begin building. We have to build eleven thousand homes every year, and if in the course of our years we can get three hundred million dollars annually, we shall solve the problem, and it is to that end that our efforts will be directed. But can we build all these flats within one hundred days? We have to at least be allowed a reasonable period of time.
We want to right the country's economic set-up, and we shall, I hope, do so - in fact, on the basis of information which I cannot yet make public, I assume that we shall succeed. Today, too, on the eve of the new year, I shall appeal to the public: give us a reasonable period of time. We want to put things right, but we cannot in one fell swoop set straight all the distortions created in the various spheres of national life.
As to the second part of the question - on the leader of the opposition - that question should be directed to my friend, the opposition leader, Mr. Shimon Peres. But since you have asked me, I cannot but reply. We have been personal friends for over twenty years, and we were in the government together - we were even together in opposition to a government. I invited the Alignment to take part in a National Unity Government, and I can repeat that offer, but they said they didn't want that under any circumstances - as is their right.
Mr. Peres is of course very wise and experienced. He is now the opposition leader and in his view is fulfilling his role properly. He claims that the government is not fulfilling its role. But on the basis of experience, I can tell you that the opposition has not yet been born which will say that the government is functioning properly. So it's very natural that he should say this.
When we were opposition, we knew how to focus on issues concerning which there is national unity, and we demonstrated that national unity. I laid down three rules for the opposition - but not as in Britain. There, they say that the task of the opposition is to oppose. I do not accept that definition, even though the British parliament is the mother of parliaments.
We are a country surrounded by enemies, and the parliamentary opposition must abide by these three rules: Generally to express differences, at times to demonstrate national unity, always to strive for change. In the meantime, there has been a change - but if Mr. Peres wants a change after the change, that is his right. As to expressing differences: they do that in the Knesset and in their newspaper with great acerdity, as I both hear and read. But as for demonstrating national unity we knew how to show unity over the Entebbe operation - twice: When the grave decision was taken on negotiating with the hijackers, we accepted responsibility, in a certain situation in which, we believed, there was no other alternative. When a decision was taken to mount a military operation, we accepted responsibility - even though there was a fear of many lives lost, or perhaps a tragedy. In both cases we assumed responsibility. And, as you know, the former Prime Minister confirmed this with full moral force.
As regards the matter of the German scientists, we were all united (the German scientists in Egypt, as you will recall).
Concerning a Palestinian State, concerning negotiations with that murderous organization known as the P.L.O. -how did Yigal Allon put it: "We cannot take the route of the partial consensus." We cannot? That is a complete mistake. Consensus can be only partial: For if it were total, there would be no government-and-opposition. Only in a national unity government is there - or there should be - full consensus: and that is no easy matter either. But when there is a government and an opposition, there can be consensus on certain issues only.
I believe I have the right to say that we set an exemplary standard as regards the second rule as well: at times, when the national need demands it, to stand together and demonstrate national unity to the world. To date, the opposition has not acted in this way. Perhaps it will yet mend its ways, as it still has plenty of time.
Moderator: I should like to wish you a happy new year, and to thank you for your replies to our questions.
Prime Minister: As I am speaking over the I.D.F. radio station, allow me to wish all the soldiers and officers of Israel a happy and blessed new year. We have a glorious army of which all the people of Israel are proud. All the best, soldiers of Israel - we are proud of you.