"Jerusalem Day", the day on which Israel's capital was re-united in 1967, was used by the Prime Minister to air his views on Jerusalem, its historic significance, as well as its place in future negotiations. He also elaborated on the agreements reached at Camp David and the prospects for the implementation of the autonomy plan, one week before the start of the talks on this aspect of the Camp David Accords, and his meeting with President Sadat at El Arish. Excerpts:
Q: In the consciousness of Israel. in the country and in the Diaspora, Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. But many nations have still not accepted this. We even hear voices from the Arab world about the liberation of Jerusalem. What is the place of Jerusalem in the peace process we're involved in today?
A: Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel in the double meaning of the state and the people. From the days when our King David transferred his capital from Hebron to Jerusalem more than three thousand years ago, Jerusalem is the city of the dreams of the Jewish nation, the city of the strivings of our people, the capital of the heart. Our forefathers swore eternal allegiance in the land of Babylon to Jerusalem. Their sons, after scores of generations, when they are sent to concentration camps in the Soviet Union, take that oath: "If I forget thee, Oh Jerusalem, may my right hand wither, may my tongue cleave to my pallet if I don't summon you before me and place you at the head of all my joys."
This is Jerusalem. One city, no longer subject to division. Other nations can say whatever's on their minds or lips -certainly. We wish that all nations would recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, just as we recognise Washington as the capital of the U.S., Paris as the capital of France, Rome as the capital of Italy, London as the capital of Britain, Managua as the capital of Nicaragua. But this is in the final result their affair. Let us assume that they don't recognise, so they should certainly feel a certain degree of shame. Jerusalem is a more ancient capital than London, than Paris and Rome, not than Athens. With regard to Washington, since capitals have been capitals, the difference between them is fifteenfold: for 200 years Washington is the capital of the U.S., and more then 3,000 as I've said, Jerusalem is our capital. So if they do not recognise this historical, moral, cultural fact, they should feel a degree of shame, and we will tell them at every opportunity: Say what you will, Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. One city that is not subject to division.
Q: Do you see Jerusalem as a subject for the deliberations to be held in the near future?
A: Whoever brings up the subject of Jerusalem will receive the reply that I voiced a moment ago. We can prevent no one from raising the problem of Jerusalem. But we must know in advance, that the sole reply he will receive is that Jerusalem is our eternal capital for all generations, and is subject to no further division, just as it became 12 years ago on Jerusalem Day: A city that was reunited, so will it remain for all time. But it must always be added: Free access to all religions to their holy places. Why is this so important? Because the world tends to forget: When Jerusalem was divided, and the Legion captured the walled city and the eastern part of Jerusalem, we, Jews, could not reach the Western Wall to pray from the heart.
This international disgrace lasted 19 years. Afterwards we liberated Jerusalem. No Christian can complain that access is denied him to pray in his holy place. No Moslem can complain that access is denied him to pray at his mosques on the Temple Mount. The opposite is true: We guarantee access to the member of any religion to their holy places. The difference being that the Jews can reach the Western wall and pray. So the change is most vital and we say, in one complete sentence: Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, one city indivisible, free access forever for all the religions to their holy places.
Q: What does the Israel Government do practically to strengthen Jerusalem. Many complaints are heard about tie-ups and delays in the development of the city. What is done about this?
A: I don't think there's any foundation to such claims. Come out and stroll with me through the city. Hasn't Jerusalem become the primary city of Israel and for the first time overtaken Tel-Aviv? The population is growing consistently and the construction is tremendous. In order to build apartments for young couples and those in housing difficulties, the Minister of Housing and Development proposed a programme and the government approved it, to freeze all public construction to free the manpower for that primary social aim. The exception is Jerusalem. Construction will go on in Jerusalem, we will do everything for Jerusalem that is possible. I will give a personal example: The fact is that since I became Prime Minister I live in Jerusalem. For thirty two years I was - for two years in a certain apartment in the underground and for thirty years above ground in the center of Tel-Aviv. When I reached this office I began living in Jerusalem. I have no office in Tel-Aviv.
Q: With your permission. Mr. Prime Minister, let us pass on to the present and future. We are about to begin deliberations on autonomy with Egypt and the U.S. Differing views are heard within the. cabinet about Israel's position in the negotiations and these views find their way into the media. Does not the fact that these views are being publicised weaken our position in the negotiations?
A: I ask that you have just a little more patience and it will turn out that the views are not divergent, and since I am using the media I would like to tell the media that not always does the news emitting from it approximate reality and I say this fraternally. So I think that we will have a unified posture. It's not that differing views are out of the question, what's wrong with it? In the final result it's the democratic process to reach decisions by parliamentary means. But in the basic things we all share the same opinion, and it should be known to you, that the committee of 11 ministers was chosen by the government to determine our proposals in the negotiations for the autonomy arrangements.
There is a mistake in your question here. This is not negotiations on autonomy. We obligated ourselves to administrative autonomy. But we must now bring proposals toconduct the negotiations on autonomy arrangements, and deliberations are as they are, everyone expresses his view. But as far as I know, as far as the basic things go, we are all united.
Q: Can you explain what was decided by the Camp David agreements and what is left open for negotiations?
A: What was determined at Camp David obligates us totally and we will carry out each and every word of the accord we signed. We are not trying to change the Camp David accord as was tried twice, for example, to extract a key word: autonomy for the inhabitants. The word 'inhabitants' was taken out twice, and we reentered it, because this is what we signed at Camp David, and we will carry out the Camp David agreement in letter and spirit. But negotiations must be carried on over details. There are many details. For example, I have no doubt that we must be responsible for security in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. But how to do this - this is what we will negotiate.
Q: Has the fact of our being responsible for security been determined by the Camp David accord?
A: I think so, definitely. It talks there about internal and external security. It says that the I.D.F. will withdraw certain of its forces but the forces remaining will be deployed at 'specified security locations'. All this has to be carried out, of course, and it also says that Israel's security will be safeguarded beyond the five-year interim period. So it is clear that in the Camp David accord we signed, and the Americans and Egyptians also signed, an agreement that should guarantee the security of Israel. How to do this - this is what we will conduct negotiations over.
Q: Does this mean that the I.D.F. will be restricted and confined to sites from which it cannot budge?
A: Do you want us to conduct the negotiations? So let's wait till we conduct the negotiations with the Egyptians. I just want to establish that for the first time we received the consent of Egypt and the U.S. to the fact that the I.D.F. will be in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This is one of the great achievements of the Camp David accord, as a result of the negotiations we conducted therefore over thirteen days and nights.
Q: Do you not see in the basic positions of Israel and the basic positions of Egypt as publicised in Cairo, such substantial divergent views that they will encumber the negotiations?
A: So why posit a pessimistic question at the very outset? We should wait for the negotiations. Of course there are differing views. What's your surprise? I, for instance, read the summaries of the Egyptians. They speak of a Palestinian state, and we state that a Palestinian state will never rise in Judea and Samaria, in no shape or form, under no condition - we won't allow its establishment. We obligated ourselves in the Camp David accord to autonomy, not sovereignty. We agreed that the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza be able to conduct their daily affairs themselves by an administrative council they will choose democratically, by secret ballot, but not to a Palestinian state. Autonomy is not a state. The exact opposite is true. So we will stick to this. They say that there should be a Palestinian state. President Sadat, with all respect, and you know the good relations which exist between him and me these days, said in Ismailiya that the position of Egypt is that in the 'West Bank', this is how he expressed it in English, and in the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian state should be established, and he himself read out what the position of Israel is. The Israeli position is that in Judea,, Samaria and the Gaza district, the Arab inhabitants should enjoy 'self rule', or autonomy in the Greek language. He himself said that this is the position of Egypt and this is the position of Israel. But in the meantime, we reached a basic agreement in Camp David, and on the basis of this accord we will conduct negotiations on the details.
Q: The positions of Israel and Egypt are very clear. It's not the same with the American position. Do you have any conjectures or information about what the American position will be in the negotiations?
A: No. As of now we have no information. I don't even assume that the Americans have any clear cut position worked out yet. I met Mr. Robert Strauss, who will represent the American president and his government at the negotiation on the autonomy arrangements. I'm about to meet the Secretary of State in London, on Thursday, and I imagine that one of our topics will be related to the negotiations on the autonomy arrangements. He will certainly inquire as to our position. I will respond. We have nothing to hide. We will deceive no one. Our positions are determined and well-known. I will give another example: The President of the U.S. sent me a letter at Camp David on the position of the U.S. on Jerusalem. I sent him a letter of reply saying that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel and a city that is 'indivisible'. So the Americans have still not recognised this. So let them check up on it and examine their own actions. Our position is perfectly clear. But afterwards, I assume that in the discussion we will have with the Secretary of State, we will discuss this issue too and maybe I will hear from him details of some kind about it.
Q: How do you see the American role in the deliberations? As observers, active arbitrators?
A: There is one substantial change and this that the American representative will not chair the meetings of the joint Israel-Egypt committee in the deliberations on the autonomy arrangements. We agreed with President Sadat and the American president accepted it gladly that the chairman rotate. When we conduct the deliberations in Beersheba the chairman will be the Israeli representative, meaning Dr. Burg, the Interior Minister. When the meeting is held in El-Arish, the chairman will be the Egyptian representative. I imagine that it will be Dr. Khalil, the Egyptian prime minister. Afterwards, we will rotate from meeting to meeting.
Q: Do you not see a substantial change between their role till now and their role in the future?
A: I don't think it's a substantial change. The main difference I mentioned is that they will not be chairing the meetings, because in Camp David, the Americans in effect conducted the meetings, to the extent that there were joint meetings. For example, President Carter sat with Prof. Barak and with Dr. El-Baz. The first represented Israel, the second, Egypt. Who directed the meetings? President Carter. It will no longer be like this. As I said before, Dr. Burg will preside over the meetings of the joint committee, and Dr. Khalil will, preside over them. They will rotate. So this is a change. With regard to the role of the U.S., this depends on them. There is now a very serious trend within America, as I heard, that the U.S. not advance any programme of its own. I don't know if this is how they will act. They're free to advance a plan. We'll read it and know how to respond to it. What is clear is that the concerned parties should conduct the negotiations. But the Americans will participate in the joint discussions, in discussions with the sides themselves, all as usual, no surprise is expected here.
Q: Do the Palestinians, inhabitants of the territories where autonomy will prevail, will they be represented at the discussions?
A: The Arabs of Eretz Israel should participate in the negotiations. We will be glad to include them. We will not sit, however, with representatives of the murderous organisation named in English 'P.L.O.' The initials translate into 'Palestinian Liberation Organization', and someone without any sense translated these words into Hebrew and called them 'Ashaf'. In Hebrew the meaning of these initials is 'Organisation for the Liberation of Falastin'. It's a scandalous shame that a Jew should call this organisation of murderers a baser lot has not arisen since the days of the Nazis -with letters that designate a liberation organisation. What kind of liberation is this? What is he meaning to liberate and from whom is he meaning to liberate, quote unquote? So I proposed to call it 'Araf'. First of all it's short for Arafat, and second, these letters say Irgun Rotzhim Palestinaim (Palestinian Murderers Organisation). Based on truth, he that murders a little girl of four is a combatant? This is a murderer baser than base. A blood-crazed beast, and woe to the ears that hear that we, by the very use of the name - terminology has a psychological value - have crowned them with the appellation 'Liberation Organisation'. So, with the people of 'Araf', with representatives of this murderous organisation, we will not sit, not talk. If one of them tries to join in, we will ask him to leave the table. If he takes his seat, we will leave the table. We will not talk to the members of 'Araf', but with the Arabs of Eretz Israel, with people who are not members of this murderous organisation - gladly. Moreover, we are interested in this. Again, how do you say it in Arabic - tfadal? Can you say this? Let him come.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, What are your expectations with regard to your imminent meeting with President Sadat in El-Arish and Beersheba, more specifically, can the process of normalisation be sped up?
A: We have agreements about our meeting in El-Arish. We made them in Cairo. President Sadat and I agreed that when we would meet in El-Arish, it would be on May 27th. We would announce the opening of the borders. Though someone in Egypt tried to retract this agreement - but I spoke to President Sadat after the announcement by a member of the Egyptian government surprised me and President Sadat told me to disregard this. The agreement between us exists and we will carry it out in full. In other words, on the basis of what was agreed between us, we will announce in El-Arish that the borders between the two countries are open and civilians can move across them. Will this happen? I will be careful and say, we'll see in El-Arish. But you should know that this is what President Sadat promised me by telephone and not only in the personal talk in Cairo, and the telephone call came a number of days after meeting in Cairo. I would like to say that if we, President Sadat and myself, really announce open borders between the two countries, the citizens of Israel should be careful and act tactfully. For example, in Cairo, there are 2,000 rooms to this day in hotels for tourists, no more. So if, let's assume, 30,000 Israelis rush off to Cairo, they'll put a burden on the Egyptians and themselves. They shouldn't do this. You need tact and a degree of patience, and even slowness, I would say, and if the Egyptians request to wait an additional time before they can receive Israeli tourists, we'll accept it. What's so bad about it?
The second agreement we have to carry out is the opening of the direct corridor between Cairo and Ben-Gurion airport, and we intend to implement this agreement in full. This will be the situation:
I will arrive in El-Arish on Sunday before noon. President Sadat and I will fly by helicopter to Beersheba. We will pay a courtesy call on the Mayor and afterwards, both of us will travel to the university of Beersheba. The president of our state, Mr. Yitzhak Navon, will receive the president of Egypt at the municipal building, and he will give words of welcome both in Hebrew and Arabic - our president, as you know, speaks excellent Arabic, as I am told by speakers of Arabic. I didn't learn this language. This will certainly be a most moving moment when both presidents meet, and afterwards, President Sadat and myself will return to Hatserim airfield, where President Sadat's plane will be parked in our military airfield. We will ascend this plane, and from the Hatserim. airfield we will jet to Cairo together. We will not land but circle over Cairo and jet straight over Sinai to Lod, we will not land, we'll circle Lod and return to Hatserim. We will take leave of each other there. President Sadat will continue on to Cairo and I will return home, namely Jerusalem. This is my home. So in this way we will inaugurate the direct air corridor, approximate flying time 45 minutes, between our two countries. There will certainly be other issues about which we will speak. We will have relatively quite a lot of time for a discussion. I learned that President Sadat is planning to come by boat to El-Arish and the boat will anchor at sea, and I will sail out to it by launch. We will also have dinner together on the ship's deck, the Israeli and Egyptian delegations. The Israel delegation will include the Foreign, Defence and Interior ministers. I will have a tete-a-tete discussion with President Sadat on deck. So additional topics will certainly arise. We will certainly be for an acceleration of the normalisation process.
Q: We are in the process of peace making with Egypt. Everyone knows we have made great concessions, Mr. Prime Minister. Will it also be possible to grant other similar concessions to our neighbours to open the peace process with them?
A: There is no connection between the peace treaty between ourselves and Egypt and the peace process with Jordan, or with Syria or with Lebanon. No connection. Someone said that the agreement between us and Egypt can or should serve as a 'model' for a peace treaty with neighbouring nations. But there isn't, there, never was and there never will be such a 'model'. We signed a peace treaty with Egypt. True. I agree with you. I will use another expression, we made sacrifices, because the word 'concessions' does not define the situation., If you signed a peace treaty, you have reached a great achievement. I say that for the sake of this achievement we have made sacrifices, but if you prefer the word 'concessions', all right, I'm not opposed to the use of this word. I believe we proceeded along the right pat' A revolution has come about in out national life. We have a peace treaty with the largest and mightiest of Arab nations. All our neighbours together do not even comprise half of the Egyptian population. So we are on a road that I think has proven itself to be right. But we signed the pact with Egypt. I don't call it a separate pact, and Sadat's Arab enemies use this expression. It's incorrect. I declare that it is no separate pact. We assuredly strive for peace agreements with all our neighbours. We are certainly striving for a solution to the problem of the Arabs of the land of Israel and the proof is that we proposed the idea of autonomy. This is why I proposed negotiations with Lebanon for the signing of a peace treaty and we could sign it after discussions lasting one or two days. But what is the problem? The Lebanese are in Syrian captivity. So the Lebanese prime minister who is a Moslem rejected my offer, and you should know that to this very day, President Sarkis has not reacted. But almost half of Lebanon, meaning, all the Christians, who amount to approximately 45 per cent of Lebanon, received my proposal with blessings. If so, this turns out to be a very important step, and it should be received very seriously and it really was greeted seriously. What then? It is written in out ancient texts: 'Cast your bread upon the waters'. In diplomacy, you must cast your bread upon the waters and one day it will return. So I made this proposal and I again invite, I invite over the airwaves of the army radio, King Hussein to come deliberate with me. If he comes to Jerusalem, he will be received most hospitably. I am prepared to meet him in Amman, or Zurich or any other neutral place. Let's talk about a peace treaty. But what connection is there between the agreement we signed with Egypt and the other fronts? No connection. We provide this in the Camp David accord as well. The Camp David agreement states clearly, I already said this, that the I.D.F. will remain in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, so what kind of 'model' is this for an agreement with Egypt or the reverse? each front separately.