During his visit to Cairo (4-6 June), Foreign Minister Dayan met with the Egyptian Prime Minister and other senior officials and concluded agreements governing the movement of people and goods across the open borders, opening of a direct air link by a third country carrier (this agreement was not implemented) and the installation of direct telephone and telex lines between the foreign ministries of the two countries. Upon his return he was interviewed on Israel Television, the complete text of which follows:
Q: Mr. Dayan, were the results of your latest visit to Egypt beyond what you expected?
A: First of all, my expectations are perhaps inflated, and therefore I returned satisfied because I obtained what I aimed at. But with regard to the program, but primarily with respect to the relations, I obtained more than I had expected.
Q: You are not disposed to become emotional. You seemed to be emotional after your visit, to judge by your reaction and by interviews you gave. What caused you to become emotional?
A. I wasn't that emotional - but I wondered in the past whether or not the Egyptians would be willing to make the written treaty a reality and establish completely normal relations between Egypt and Israel. And this trip, and the subject we took up, was the first test of this question - and the outcome was positive. So my mood, my "emotional state" as you put it, was positive also.
Q: With this would you say that you still have reason to wonder on this score?
A: We have three years in which we must implement the peace agreement. Who knows what political vicissitudes there will be in Egypt. Who knows what system of relations will be formed between Israel and Egypt, let's say on the subject of autonomy. And even U.S.-Soviet relations, an Iranian-type revolution, Iraqi influence on Saudi Arabia - all these things may influence Israel-Egypt relations.
Q: It seems that there was an overemphasis placed on tourism in these latest agreements. Peace and normal relations include many other things, like the economy, commerce, agriculture, health, cultural relations. What about these things?
A: Tourism is being carried out in advance of the set date. All the things you mentioned are written and agreed in the peace treaty, but the date for discussing them is nine months from now, when the negotiations over those topics are scheduled to begin. There is no guarantee that these negotiations, say over an economic agreement, will be concluded successfully. Let's say, for instance, that Israel enters into negotiations with another nation - Norway -and the negotiations are not concluded successfully. Does Israel then have the right to make any special claims of Norway? On the tourism issue, President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin agreed to advance the date set. Therefore this is the exception, and all the things you mentioned will be discussed in nine months, and then substantive negotiations will begin, which negotiations may end in success or in failure.
Q: You didn't take up these subjects at all in your meetings?
A: No.
Q: Would it be correct to say that altogether Israelis are very excited about normalizing relations, the Egyptians are more restrained?
A: I wouldn't say that. First of all, I'm not sure about the generalization. Who are the "Israelis" and who the "Egyptians"? Forty million Egyptians?
Q: Let's say the Israel Government and the Egyptian Government.
A: You know very well that in the Israel government there are those who are not that enthusiastic about the peace agreement. With regard to the Egyptian government, I can say that President Sadat is the most firm and solid on this issue of all the persons I met - in his belief that normalization will take place and in his belief and faith in the importance of the path he chose. I didn't see him waver, shift or budge in any way from the time the negotiations began. I would say that my colleague Butrus Ghali, and I hope he won't be hurt by this - that on account of his office, and also perhaps because of his personal makeup - is extremely sensitive to Arab reactions of other Arab states and to the possibility of the difficulties that Egypt may encounter. But I didn't see any breaches between the three persons I met with - Sadat, Mustafah Khalil and Butrus Ghali - with regard to their willingness to implement the peace agreement with Israel.
Q: Did I hear you correctly when you said that it is known that there are Israeli Cabinet Ministers who are not enthusiastic about the peace treaty? Who are these Ministers?
A: You heard, and read in the newspapers, about ministers who were willing to vote against approving the peace treaty. This is no secret.
Q: Isn't is odd that the Foreign Minister is handling matters in the domain of the Interior Ministry, such as visas, supervising of borders, etc., while the Minister of the Interior is handling such a political matter par excellence as autonomy?
A: This is certainly not odd. First of all your definition is not correct. Visas and all these things are granted by embassies which are under the control of the Foreign Ministry. The Interior Ministry does not issue visas. Let's say we were talking about London, Paris, New York, any other foreign country - does the Interior Minister issue visas there?
Q: Who supervises the borders?
A: The police.
Q: The police are within the domain of the Interior Ministry.
A: In this case also the police will supervise the borders. What do you want - do you imagine that the Foreign Ministry will organize a border patrol? So long as the Egyptian Foreign Ministry can not appoint in Israel an Egyptian Ambassador, the Israel Foreign Ministry constitutes the Egyptian Embassy here, and the Egyptian Foreign Ministry constitutes the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. But this subject, of visas, etc., all this things are legitimately within the domain of the Foreign Ministry.
Q: At the Herut conference, the Prime Minister said that if the administrative council of the autonomy regime claims or proclaims sovereignty over the areas, Israel will put them in jail. Ezer Weizman said that if the Egyptians violate the peace treaty Israel will go into the Sinai. What is your response to these statements?
A: First of all, I don't think that you expect me to, or that I have to, react on television to the statements of the Defense Minister or the Prime Minister. Each of them expresses his opinion and I don't think that any other minister has the need or even the right to go on television and argue with them. But why should I tell you this - I'll tell you my opinion. My opinion is not different, I think, from the overall Cabinet opinion on this matter. The Israel-Egypt peace treaty does not include the establishment of a Palestinian state. And if the autonomy council to be elected, proclaims one day an independent state, and takes such measures, then there is no international policeman that will see to it that they fulfill the obligations they entered into. Israel must see to it that its rights are not infringed, and if the Arabs wish to act in violation of the treaty, then Israel will be obliged to implement the treaty. And this goes for the autonomy, this goes for the Sinai, this goes for the Golan, this goes for all those areas where there is no international police force that will guarantee the rights of the state of Israel. The question before us in a case like this is whether the violation is so serious as to require Israel to take measures, or only to protest and lodge a protest to the U.N. Security Council. And if measures are required, then the question is which measures? So if you're talking about the Sinai, then if they put in fifty more soldiers than permitted, I don't think that Ezer (Weizman) will recommend that Israel conquer the whole Sinai. It could be that he would recommend an appropriate step on Israel's part. But if a case such as in 1967, when the entire Egyptian Army moved towards the Israeli border, arises, and Israel believes that Egypt is about to attack, or if they close the straits of Eilat, then Israel might take the same steps it saw fit to take in 1967.
Q: Why do you abstain from dealing with the subject of autonomy and even from relating to this subject in interview?
A: First, I am a member of the autonomy committee, and I have not resigned from the committee. Second, the chairman of that committee is Minister Burg, and I have not found it appropriate to express my ideas in public on this subject.
Q: Why?
A: Because I found it improper to express my opinion in public, and not express it in internal discussions.
Q: Will you go to Alexandria on Monday?
A: I don't know. I'll decide the eve of the trip.
Q: In the Cabinet you opposed the settlement at Elon Moreh, the settlement that went up yesterday. Today that settlement is a fact. How do you relate to this?
A: I relate to this as a majority decision which anyone who wants to remain in the Cabinet is bound to accept, even though one's opinion remains the same - and indeed I have not changed my mind on this matter. But a majority decision binds me.