In this interview, an abridged version of which follows, Mr. Begin said he was in close contact with President Carter; he also said that the U.S. knows the Israeli ideas concerning the future borders, but that those ideas will have to be discussed between Israel and the Arab leaders. Mr. Begin for the first time hinted that some moves were afoot when he answered to a question about the road to peace being blocked: "I have no reason to assume that the road to peace will be blocked." He also reiterated his opposition to additional interim agreements.
Q. You have repeatedly said, in Washington and on your return home after meeting President Carter, that there is no confrontation between Israel and the United States. However, there are differences on substantive issues: A homeland for the Palestinians, withdrawal to the 4 June 1967 borders and the attitude to the P.L.O. Is there a chance to achieve peace with the Arabs on the terms which appear to be essential to our survival when, on the most fundamental issues, there is no agreement between Israel and the U.S.A.?
A. After the election which surprised all the observers, including observers in the United States - and I have not ceased apologising for this surprise - and before my visit to Washington, everyone forecast that there would be a confrontation, even a serious confrontation, between President Carter and myself. The confrontation did not come.
That is what I told friends at Blair House when I returned from a personal conversation with President Carter. That was the absolute truth. There was no confrontation. On the contrary, a personal relationship developed between the President and me. I have additional proof: In the President's letter to me, on the eve of my trip to Rumania, Mr. Carter wrote: 'A personal close relationship has been created between us'. As for differences between us and the United States: They were not created after 17 May 1977. They have existed since the Six-Day War, they worsened considerably in March 1977 in what was called the confrontation between the then Prime Minister, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, and President Carter, three months before the elections to the Ninth Knesset and about four months before the establishment of the new government.
The new government is trying to correct the situation connected with the confrontation which developed since the days of the Alignment-led government. I will bring one example which shows a change for the better in the relationship between the United States and Israel: In March this year, Israel was explicitly asked to be prepared to allow the organization known as the P.L.O. to participate in the Geneva Conference. This demand has never been presented to the new government. The truth is we anticipated the Arabs' demand that the terrorists participate in the reconvened Geneva Conference and so we took alternative proposals to President Carter. This is in case the Arab states should refuse to permit the reconvening of the Conference because of their stubborn demand that the terrorists participate in it.
Q. Is there anyone in the government who believes that the Arabs will agree to sign a peace treaty which does not define the territorial problem?
A. Between Israel and the Arabs there exist fundamental differences over the content of the peace treaties - and especially over the territorial problem. They contend that Israel must make a total withdrawal to the 4 June 1967 borders, including the transfer to Arab control of Old Jerusalem. They argue that a Palestinian - more precisely an Arafat - state should be established in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip. One can say that this is Rakah's plan. If anyone wants an agreement under these terms let him say so explicitly, as he identifies with the Rakah faction. All the Zionist factions in Israel, perhaps including even Shelli, are opposed to this.
It should therefore be asked whether, if there is no readiness to accept the Rakah or Cairo and Damascus plan because of differences of view between the Arabs and, at least 113 M.K.'s, we should despair of the chance to make peace. The Arabs reject every Israeli plan, including that of Mapam which calls for a united Jerusalem and for 'annexation' of Part of the Golan Heights and of at least part of the Gaza Strip. The firm answer is that under no circumstances should we despair of the chance for peace. It is, war which is avoidable. Peace is inevitable. This we have learned from the history of wars between all the peoples in all periods. Therefore, the day of peace will also come to the Middle East. There have always been differences of opinion between the warring parties when sitting down for peace talks.
Q. The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Ariel Sharon, says that Israel cannot under any circumstances withdraw from the Golan Heights, whereas in the peace plan you presented to President Carter in the White House, Israel expresses readiness in an official government document for a withdrawal on the Golan Heights. Are there two voices here?
A. No there is a government policy and not a policy of this or that minister. I asked both the President of the United States and the Secretary of State not to hand over to the Arabs our proposals with regard to the permanent borders which are to be determined in the peace treaties. In view of this request, you cannot expect me to give details on the border issue in a press interview, as within a few hours all the Arabs leaders would know about them. There aren't two voices, but only that of the government. There is no policy of Ministers.
Q. President Carter and you agreed to keep in regular contact through letters and telephones. Apart from the letter you received from the President on the eve of your visit to Romania, were there other contacts?
A. Apart from this letter, we exchanged two other personal letters and this morning (Thursday of last week) I sent the President another letter. We had no telephone conversations.
Q. At the end of October this year the U.N. force mandate in Sinai will expire and at the end of November the mandate in the Golan Heights will also expire. Have talks begun on extending the mandates in the two areas?
A. This is not a problem which worries me. There is reason to assume that everyone will agree to extending the U.N. forces' mandates both in the south and in the north. It is worth mentioning that both Egypt and Syria are interested in extending these mandates. We shall, however, be ready for any situation when it occurs.
Q. In the meantime, the Egyptians continue to violate the interim agreement and the Chief of Staff said that they are 'playing hide and seek' with the Americans and with us. What does the government intend to do about it?
A. Some time ago I received a notice from General Gamasy, the Egyptian War Minister, through General Silasvuo, U.N. forces' commander in the Middle East, that Egypt would strictly observe the interim agreement. Since then, however, it has become clear that a special situation exists in the canal area: the Egyptians are sending thousands of extra troops into Sinai, in violation of the agreements. Prior to the U.N. checkup they returned them to the west bank, and so at the time of the checkup there were no more troops there than had been agreed on. After the U.N. checkup, they returned the troops to the east bank, to Sinai. This is a situation that we cannot accept. As a result the Minister of Defence, Ezer Weizman, had another talk with General Silasvuo to inform him of the continuing Egyptian violations. Ezer requested him to fly to Cairo to hand General Gamasy our demand that the agreement be honoured. We, on our part, honour and keep the agreement. I requested that General Gamasy be told that in the present period all of us must consider the process of peace-making in the Middle East and not engage in violations of agreements that have already been signed. According to the U.N. forces' commander, the Egyptian commander agreed to this. Now we have General Gamasy's renewed commitment, and I hope that we will stand up to the test.
Q. Did the Israel government inform the U.S. of the continuation of the Egyptian violations and of the seriousness with which they were regarded by Israel?
A. The Americans are aware of this development as they see it for themselves on the ground.
Q. If, despite all the efforts to achieve peace, the road to peace is blocked, would Israel agree to further interim settlements?
A. I have no reason to assume that the road to peace will be blocked. We have proposed no further interim settlements, which imply one thing only: An Israeli withdrawal without peace. How far can one withdraw without peace? We want to conduct negotiations for peace, not for interim settlements. Therefore, we have presented the draft of a peace treaty between us and our neighbours.
Q. Have you already received from the U.S.A. a final reply concerning the purchase of F-16 planes?
A. No. There are further contacts and clarifications on this matter.
Q. Members of Gush Emunim claim that even without the government's approval they have a right to settle throughout the Land of Israel, in accordance with the government's decision allowing every Jew to settle anywhere. Is that so?
A. In all the talks with the U.S. administration we have made our position unambiguous. There is no illegal Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel. Every Jew is entitled to establish his home anywhere in the Land of Israel. It cannot be expected that a Jewish government should adopt a discriminatory policy on this issue.
Q. Does the government have a detailed plan for a settlement map, and when will it start?
A. I will not reply now.
Q. President Carter requested that you refrain from approving new settlements. It is believed, and has not yet been denied, that he added that he regarded your response to his request as a test of the friendly relationship built up between you both. Are you not concerned that the continuation of settlement will undermine this relationship?
A. I never received such a hint from President Carter, Mr. Carter reacted twice to the government's decisions. On the first occasion he reacted with complete understanding, expressing a positive attitude to the possibility of an increase in the population of existing settlements. He explained to the American people that I have commitments to the Israeli public on this issue. On the second occasion, the President reacted by identifying with the State Department's assertion that the establishment of settlements was illegal. On the question of legality I have stated my view: No Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel is illegal.
Differences of opinion between Israel and the U.S. have existed for ten years, since the Six-Day War. One day Ambassador Toon brought the then Prime Minister, Mr. Rabin, a protest note from President Ford about a settlement which was established in accordance with the government's decision. The Prime Minister did not accept the protest.