In this interview, the Prime Minister spoke openly of Israel's peace initiative and of the Israeli peace plan which was presented to the United States, whose approval Israel was seeking. This would be one of the aims of the visit of Foreign Minister Dayan to the U.S. Mr. Begin also felt that some Arab states may have decided to opt for a political, rather than a military, solution of the Middle East conflict. The Prime Minister hoped that direct talks could be arranged between the Foreign Ministers of Israel and the Arabs states, as suggested by Secretary Vance. The foreign policy parts of the interview follows:
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, do you truly believe that the coming year will mark a turningpoint in the peace process in the Middle East?
A. First. of all, efforts have been made to make sure this is a year without war. We have assured the public we will do everything in our power, as individuals, as a government, to make sure no new war breaks out in the Middle East. And of course we are making every endeavour to implement what we have undertaken, though of course it is not all in our hands. There is also the enemy. We cannot know what is happening in his heart. We can of course be extremely cautious, on the alert, following events closely, keeping an eye open, for when all is said and done - the measure of our alertness is up to us.
This government has taken the initiative. We brought forward a proposal for a framework for a peace settlement to the U.S. President. We also proposed either the good offices of the United States, for setting up joint Arab-Israel commission with the Arab capitals - three or perhaps four if Lebanon participates - so that in this framework negotiations for a peace treaty can be conducted, or proximity talks, as proposed to us by the United States itself in 1972.
True, there was also a proposal which we mentioned during my visit to Washington: In September, the United Nations Assembly which will be attended by the Middle East Foreign Ministers.
They could meet. Sadat at the time accepted this proposal, but Assad cancelled it and Sadat apparently had no choice. In any case, he decided to accept Assad's view, and that left only one way open and to that too we gave our agreement, so that the peace process would continue; I refer to the talks of the Secretary of State on the one hand, and of the Middle East Foreign Ministers on the other.
The Secretary of State told us that there might perhaps be direct meetings. There would be an effort on the part of the Americans to bring about such meetings. Towards this end the government made an unprecedented effort - for the first time since the establishment of the state - for the first time since the Six-Day War, we drew up the draft of a full and complete peace treaty.
Ending the state of belligerency, establishing consular and diplomatic relations and so on. We have already given the draft to the Americans before the Foreign Minister leaves.
... I wish to stress that in my view the Arab states are interested in peace. No less - not more but certainly not less, than the state of Israel. I maintain that war is avoidable - but peace is inevitable. It is bound to come. It could take a longer period of time. That is quite possible. But the day of peace will come.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, could one conclude from your remarks that the Arab states have abandoned the military solution and today prefer the political process.
A. I believe, for the time being, that they too have given agreement to talks with the Secretary of State. We have to be very much on the alert over the possibility of aggression. I have stated that clearly. We are on the alert, prepared, and if we are attacked we shall defend ourselves. But defence also involves counter-attack and the Arabs should realize that.
Q. Mr. Begin, you speak of an Israeli peace initiative. In the final instance, whether there has been a draft peace treaty or not, there have been Israeli initiatives in the past. What distinguishes this initiative from those of the past?
A. I do not deny that there have been peace initiatives in the past. I am talking of a specific international document. A peace treaty. No such document has been presented in the past. This is a simple fact and I wish to stress it. I think it was a very good piece of work that we have produced. In any case it is an initiative that is being discussed today.
Q. Is the document you are referring to - the peace treaty drawn up by the government - acceptable to the Americans?
A. It is for this purpose that the Foreign Minister is about to visit the United States - to hold talks with the Secretary of State. We may very well get American agreement for large sections of it. Perhaps there will be certain sections of it that will certainly get American agreement. There may be certain clauses they will discuss with us from a different point of view. Everything is open. I want to stress that for the first time we have got U.S. agreement to the actual use of the term "Peace Agreement". The Americans agreed to it. The Egyptians agreed to it at one time. But then the Egyptians did not want to hear of a peace treaty and the Americans, as I recall myself from a visit to Washington ten years ago, asked us: Why do you need a peace treaty? Peace can be attained by other ways. Today a change has come about. When I was in Washington, I was given an American document "A comprehensive peace settlement", and we proposed adding the words "embodied in peace treaties" - and this was accepted by the Americans. And today that is a common Israeli-American position. It is not something you can just brush aside. It does mark a change compared to the past. And we shall see what they say concerning the contents of the document.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, in referring to a peace agreement I have not heard any reference on your part to the words 'withdrawals' or 'borders'.
A. No. I will not talk of those subjects now for a simple reason. When we presented the draft peace agreement it was accompanied by a letter in which we expressed our position on the territorial question. But we asked the Secretary of State to make sure that these points be brought only before the United States government and not to the knowledge of the Arabs. And he promised to accede to that request.
I only want to say that the position we have expressed in the letter accompanying the draft peace treaty is completely identical with what we told the President of the United States in a personal conversation we held at the White House... completely identical. In other words. It is the government's policy that has been worked out in detail and that has been conveyed to the President of the United States. And we stand by it.
Q. We have heard at least a question on a programme of Ministers based at least on what was said by the Foreign Minister Mr. Dayan in the Knesset, that if the Arab states were prepared to negotiate on the partition of Judea and Samaria, Israel would be prepared to hold talks with them on the subject, but if she is not prepared for that from the outset?
A. Today also I endorse his words. They were said with my approval and with my advance agreement. I want to quote exactly what Mr. Dayan said in the Knesset. He did not say (as I have already pointed out) "If they present..." but "if only they were to present" (such a proposal). In other words he was stressing that they are not, and have not presented any such proposal. They do not even want to hear of what is called territorial partition in Judea and Samaria.
Q. One of the main subjects to be discussed by Moshe Dayan with the Secretary of State is that of settlements. This is against the background of, on the one hand, the repeated assertion of President Carter that settlements in the administered territories are illegal, and on the other hand, the desire and pressure from the Gush Emunim people to establish new settlements in the territories. How is the government going to cope with this problem?
A. On the issue of settlements, we do have differences of view. They are not new. They have existed for ten years. I know of a protest that the U.S. Ambassador conveyed to my predecessor, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, at one time, concerning certain settlement - and the protest was signed by the U.S. President. The former Prime Minister did not accept the protest, this thing has been going on for years. In exposing our point of view, did I leave any doubt in their minds as to our attitude to settlements, or to our being in favour of the right of the Jewish people to settle anywhere in Eretz Israel?...
... Could anyone imagine that a Jewish government would discriminate against Jews everyone may live in places such as Bethlehem, Beth-el and Hebron, for example, but not Jews? That is the reason I gave them. We insist on our right, without a shadow of doubt. The previous government also established settlements, though according to a certain programme. We do not accept that programme known as the Allon plan.
Mr. Allon once came to me charging that I had said his plan was 'dead', so I could put it differently - it is past, and we are not working according to it. I state that openly.
When I was at the White House, I got a great welcome, but of course ... both the President and I acknowledged there were differences of opinion between us ...
Q. What will happen if Gush Emunim, for example, sets up a number of settlements, as they have repeatedly threatened to do - at the Jewish Agency for example? How will you deal with that problems?
A. Any question that begins with the word "if" I shall answer when the "if" disappears from the question.
Q. But the question began with "What would happen..."
A. There's no point in answering "if" questions until the situation arises. That applies to all those questions. The government will reach decisions after the cabinet debate, as it proper.
Q. Do you not find it difficult, as Prime Minister, to implement a settlement policy? In other words, do you not find it difficult, now that you are in government and have to face the United States, to implement what you declared you believed in when you were in opposition, concerning settlement and other issues?
A. The difficulties existed beforehand as well, they are not now. For years now I have been a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee. I have heard of the protest from the U.S. President, and the reaction of the then Prime Minister to it, that perhaps the citizens of Israel had not heard about. This whole discussion between ourselves and U.S. is not new. President Carter was right to say that 'it's become a tradition with you', in other words - in the ten years since the Six-Day War, it has become a policy. The difficulties are not new.
Of course every issue must be given serious consideration. But why should I alter principles in which I believe? I try to implement them. We are trying to carry out what we promised the public.
Q. Mr. Begin, to switch to relations with the opposition - you tend to use the word 'consensus' frequently: Why is a consensus so important to you?
A. I do not use the word consensus frequently. I want to say that I agree with what the Foreign Minister said at the Kfar Hamaccabia. On certain issues there is a full consensus among the Israeli people, and I believe it is important to express this - Israel will not return to the lines of 4 June 1967. Jerusalem will be whole and united, the capital of Israel. We shall not agree to the establishment of a Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria and in Gaza, and we shall not participate in any negotiations with the terrorist organization known as the P.L.O.
On these four issues there are no differences of opinion between the parties, apart from Rakah, that's a known fact. To some extent also Shelli - but not always.
If you noticed - only Rakah voted against the proposal concerning the P.L.O., while Shelli abstained. But even if we were to suppose that the two stood together on these political issues, we would have seven Knesset members out of 120 - with the other 113 in agreement over the four principles I have named.
I can see no reason why this agreement on these four such important issues should not be expressed immediately. If you were to ask Mr. Peres, Mr. Allon and Professor Yadin of the D.M.C. on these four issues, you would find that they have exactly the same attitude as we do. The issues are of the utmost importance, and from time to time we ask for an expression of general agreement. The opposition refused - that is its right. But never mind, we have a majority...
Q. When a statement is made, such as that of the Minister of Agriculture Ariel Sharon, on settlements, I take the liberty to assume that you do not feel very comfortable about it?
A. No, but that kind of thing can happen in any government... I want to say that the Minister of Agriculture is excellent in that capacity, he is truly interested in agriculture. But he is chairman of the Ministerial Committee on Settlement, and sometimes he makes statements, and he has corrected his statement. I have read the correction. It is better that he corrected it himself than that I should have to issue a correction. But that too is part of life. Nothing tragic has happened and there's no need to exaggerate.
Q. Mr. Begin, apart from peace - in which all the citizens of Israel believe - what would you, as Prime Minister, like to achieve?
A. To talk entirely realistically, first of all I want to prevent war, and secondly I want to see Israel approaching peace. Thirdly, I would like in the four-year term of this Knesset, to do away with poverty - especially where it is expressed in housing overcrowding, where you have families with 8 to 10 persons in two-room apartment - that is something which cannot be allowed to continue... I have always told my personal friends in the Alignment that, as Socialists, they should be ashamed for allowing such poverty to exist in Israel...
I would like to see conditions of decency, of honesty, of good manners, of mutual respect between human beings, of respect for women, children and old people, prevailing in our society. After all we have attained what was not attained by the generations - tens of generations - before us. We have attained a homeland of our own, a state with its own institutions - in other words, a Jewish State of which we and the entire Jewish People can be proud.