The main problem discussed by the Foreign Minister were Israel-American relations after the publication of the U.S.-Israel working paper of 5 October. Mr. Dayan did not consider that the situation has reached crisis dimensions, but both countries will have to learn to live together even while disagreeing on many issues. Text:
Newsweek: There has been a great deal of friction between the U.S. and Israel in the past few days. Was it really the Soviet-American statement on the Middle East that caused all this fuss? Or was your government already concerned that the Carter Administration was drifting toward the Arab point of view?
Dayan: I would hesitate to define it as a direction, something ongoing. I don't know. But you are correct in saying that it was not just the American-Russian paper. [It was also the proposal for] establishment of a Palestinian state. That, in some form, is the idea adopted by and expressed by the President in the way of a homeland or entity for the Palestinians... We think that is the wrong thing to do. [So is] the attitude of the President about going back to the '67 lines with minor modifications.
Q. Given these areas of disagreement, is a showdown between the U.S. and Israel inevitable?
A. The question is: can we go along together, maintaining our differences of opinion but not really developing them into a crisis? Or at a certain point, will the American Administration... insist on something which will be unacceptable for Israel? This is not the situation now. But the question is about balance - whether we can live together with some problems that we do not agree about, and still go on with the main close relationship.
Q. Does Prime Minister Begin appreciate the need to maintain this balance?
A. He would try whatever he can [to preserve] this balance and if possible to get closer to the U.S. But that would be [true] up to a point - not only for him, but for any Israeli Government. For instance, if the U.S. insists on a Palestinian state, I think that any Israeli Government would reject it. And if we have to make the choice tomorrow of what to do -have a breach with the U.S. ... or accept a Palestinian state - we would rather have these problems with the U.S. than agree to a Palestinian state, which we seriously think would eventually bring the destruction of Israel.
Q. But what about Israel's refusal to even talk to the PLO at Geneva? Isn't that what peace conferences are for - to talk to your enemies?
A. Of course, if you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. But the question is whom do we want to make peace with - not just who are our enemies. Now, we want to make peace with all our neighbours - Egypt and Syria and Jordan. And when we say Jordan, that includes Palestinian Arabs who are living on the West Bank... and in the Gaza Strip, with whom we have to live together... But the PLO organization, which is head-quartered in Beirut, is a very specific organization - terrorists - and in their Covenant, it's clearly put that their aim and target is to destroy Israel. While we want to make peace with our neighbors, we do not think that a new Palestinian state... would be the right solution.
Q. But what do you propose to do about the Palestinian refugees?
A. They must be settled, no question about that, and [provided with] a normal way of life like any other people. It's a pity that this wasn't done during the 30 years that they have been living in camps. But even if there was a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, that would not solve the problem. It could not accommodate the refugees. So the answer for the refugees is that they should be settled, most of them, in the countries where they are... We think [the Palestinian refugees] should be settled - but not on the basis of a Palestinian state on the West Bank that Yasir Arafat would come to with... some of his forces. That would be just his base for an attack against Israel.
Q. How will you settle this without talking to the PLO?
A. I think this should be dealt with by an international body. We have to do our share, and probably pay compensation [to the refugees]. But we don't want [the PLO] to come over and establish a state near us. We don't have to talk to them. We don't have to make peace with them.
Q. Some people think Israel really does not want to go to Geneva. Does it?
A. It would be bad, but we have to try. And I'm not really sure that in such a case the situation will be the same with all the Arab countries. Maybe we will be completely stuck, for instance, with Syria, but we will be able to make some progress with Jordan or with Egypt. The rate of progress would not necessarily be the same with all Arab countries.
Q. How do you rate the chances of another Middle East War?
A. I think that as long as diplomatic negotiations take place, the chances for war are little. But if we should get stuck, then the chances for war are much bigger.