The main foreign policy issues discussed in this interview were Israel-U.S. relations, the role of the PLO in future talks and Israel's role in protecting minorities in the Middle East. Mr. Begin declared that he regarded "Israel as the protector of the minorities in all of the Middle East." This statement was made in reference to Israeli military activities in southern Lebanon in the past two years. Mr. Begin also explained the nature of the next phase in peacemaking, saying that he hopes for the renewal of the Geneva Conference under the terms worked out in Washington. He said that while he and President Sadat agreed that a working committee of Foreign Ministers should be set up, President Assad opposed the idea and the matter was dropped. Abridged version of the foreign policy section of the interview follows:
Q. With your permission, Mr. Prime Minister, how to regard the current erosion in U.S.-Israel relations against the background of the dispute over the PLO issue?
A. First of all I'd like to get some dates right. The erosion you are talking about began in March 1977, in other words several months before the general elections here in Israel. Back then Mr. Carter was already President of the United States and I learned that all the observers there were certain that the Alignment would form the next government - and this was before Mr. Peres replaced Mr. Rabin as party chief. The assumption in the United States was that Mr. Rabin would be the man to form the next government in Israel and already in March explicit and direct pressure began to be imposed on us to take part in the Geneva Conference together with the Arab murder organization the PLO. Therefore I think that at that time the situation was critical. I believe that were such American pressure to be exerted on us today, namely that we attend Geneva together with the PLO, our political situation would be a grave one. Except that the present government would have said unconditionally and without any hesitation: No, it is out of the question and we would have exerted on us today, namely that we attend Geneva together with the PLO, our political situation would be a grave one. Except that the present government would have said unconditionally and without any hesitation: No, it is out of the question and we would have stood our ground, even though obviously the situation would not have been a pleasant one.
Now however, the Secretary of State Cyrus Vance has stated explicitly here, in the cabinet meeting room, that the participation of the organization of murderers in the Geneva Conference is conditional on the consent of the parties. He also said this to the Arabs when he was in Cairo, Damascus, Amman and Riyad. Therefore we must state the truth, namely that today the U.S. Administration is not pressuring the Israeli government to go to Geneva with the organization of murderers know as the PLO. On the contrary, the U.S. is explicitly leaving the decision in the hands of the parties which means, in our hands as well, because we are one of the parties. When I left for Washington and my talks with President Carter I first drew up two alternative proposals with respect to our fundamental approach to the framework of the peace-making process. We proposed that the Geneva Conference be reconvened starting on October 10, after the Jewish holidays. The session would be convened on the basis of letters of invitation of the two co-chairmen, the representatives of the United States and the Soviet Union, as provided in U.N. Security Council Resolution 338.
We likewise proposed that after the opening meeting there be set up mixed commissions consisting of representatives of Israel and each one of the Arab states separately, and that in these commissions negotiations would be conducted over a peace treaty. We added that after these commissions completed their work, and if we arrived at an agreement over the content of a peace treaty - a further session of the Geneva Conference would be convened and the ceremony of signing the peace treaty would take place. We stressed that in the Geneva Conference there would participate only delegations of sovereign states, and when President Carter asked me if we'd agree that Lebanon participate I replied, yes. It is clear beyond any doubt that at the Geneva Conference there is not and will not be any place for the murderers organization. Incidentally, when I presented this position to Rumanian President Nicolae Ceaucescu he said to me: Your programme lacked nothing, and then he again raised the issue of PLO participation at Geneva.
Q. It often seems as if the issue of the PLO has reached a sort of standstill. What do you think will be the eventual outcome?
A. We took into account the possibility that the Arab states might require that the murderers organization in question take part in the Geneva Conference, and we therefore brought the U.S. President two alternative proposals: 1) That the good offices of the United States be used to set up the mixed commissions I mentioned, without an opening session of the Geneva Conference. To this end U.S. diplomats would visit the Arab capitals and Jerusalem to determine who the representatives of the various countries would be in such commissions. 2) What is known as proximity talks. The Americans proposed this themselves back in 1972. We also put forward a third proposal, but not in writing: seeing as in September the Foreign Ministers of the Arab states and Israel will be in New York, they could certainly be brought together, again through the good offices of the United States. I wish to point out that President Sadat also proposed that a working committee of Foreign Ministers be set up, and welcomed this proposal, but President Assad of Syria was opposed to it and the matter was dropped.
Q. It is a fact that many Arabs in Israel and the Arab states are suspicious, and even downright afraid, of you. Your image as commander of the IZL lives with them to this very day. How would you define your attitude to the Arabs.
A. First of all, you can ask the Arab and Druse members of the Knesset and they will tell you how very cordial our relations have been with each other for years. As for my personal attitude towards the Arabs I will tell you frankly: Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote: "I relate to the Arabs as to every nation with a degree of respect and indifference" - that is, what he wanted to say was: If it's a matter of love then I love my own people. As far as all the others are concerned, I respect them, but I cannot relate to them as I do to my own people. I want to say, that I have a profound respect for the Arab nation. The Arab nation made a very great contribution to human culture. It is true that it has had a period of decay. But that is something that has happened to other powerful nations as well. I am definitely aware of the Arab's important contribution to human culture. It is a fact that in the past two years a profound understanding - I might even say a pact of understanding has been formed between us and the million odd Christian Arabs living in Lebanon. At first they were very hesitant about admitting that Israel was extending aid to them. Today it is just the opposite. They insist that we publicize it and are publicizing it themselves. We do not ask them for thanks. We are helping them out of the goodness of our heart, for the simple reason that a minority must not be allowed to be destroyed by a majority. As it is written: "For you were sojourners in the land of Egypt". I regard Israel as the protector of the minorities in all of the Middle East. Why, only yesterday I received a visit from a delegation of Israeli Druse together with a Druse emissary from the Golan Heights. They requested that we hook up the Golan Heights to the national power grid. I promised to look into the matter at once and I have already spoken about it with the Minister of Energy and he is dealing with the matter. If it proves to be feasible, we will certainly do it. In my opinion the past decade has been a growing rapport between the Arabs living in Israel and ourselves. Unpleasant incident from time to time notwithstanding I believe that the two people can live side by side in mutual respect based on understanding, peace, economic and social progress and the building up of this country to a state of glory.