The annual press luncheon given by the editors of the Israeli press in honour of the Prime Minister to commemorate the November 29, 1947 UN partition resolution was held three weeks prior to Mr. Begin's visit to Egypt. The exchange, excerpts of which follow, focussed on his forthcoming meeting with President Sadat, the progress of the autonomy talks and the issue of the Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria.
Q: Egypt has announced its intention to set up its embassy in Israel with a very limited staff. Preparations in Egypt for establishing relations with Israel on January 26 have not in fact begun. In view of these signs of an Egyptian intention to allow only a limited normalization, do you believe there is room for concern in Israel?
Prime Minister Begin: I believe the matter you have just raised is a timely one. It proves that the dates for the establishment of what are called "normal relations" between Israel and Egypt will be kept. Naturally, we cannot determine how many people the Egyptian embassy will comprise, but it seems to us that the proposal as mentioned raises a few questions, especially with regard to our embassy's staff, and you may take it that I shall raise this question with President Sadat when I see him in the second week of January.
Q: Still in the realm of foreign affairs: how do you view the intentions of the U.S.A. to supply massive arms both to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia, and the impact of this on the strategic balance of power in the region - specifically Israel versus her neighbours?
A: According to my information, no decisions have yet been taken, but there are indeed clarifications and plans afoot. The problem is a serious one, and we are dealing with it energetically, but at the same time distinguishing between the two parts of the question as reality dictates.
Q: I would like to know your reaction to the interview with Mr. Dayan published today on the subject of the immediate abrogation of the military administration in the West Bank and the implementation of autonomy on a unilateral basis.
A: You read your afternoon paper in the morning - or even the day before. I must admit that I have not yet had a chance to read today's interview with my good friend Moshe Dayan. But if there is a suggestion to that effect, I can express my opinion that this would not be a fulfilment of the Camp David Agreements. We signed the Camp David Agreements, and in my opinion we must abide by them. It is not a question of unilateral action but of agreement. Negotiations on the agreements are still going on, there are difficulties, completely natural ones, we should not be afraid of them, we must hope that final agreement will be reached. No, I am not in favour of unilateral action. I am in favour of abiding by the agreements we made after meetings which lasted thirteen days and nights in Camp David, agreements consisting of two parts: one, a peace treaty, which we already signed, and which, without a doubt, was a turning point in the history of the Middle East: the state of war with the largest and strongest Arab nation was brought to an end and peace will be established, and there will be peaceful relations and cooperation between our two nations, as we all hope. With regard to the second part, there is a letter signed by President Sadat and myself and addressed to the President of the United States, according to which we are to conduct negotiations during the coming year about implementing the autonomy for the Arab inhabitants of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, together with all the other details set out in the Camp David Agreements (in the same part). We are in duty bound to obey the rule "Agreements must be fulfilled", and according to this rule we will conduct ourselves.
Q: You touched slightly on the matters you expect to discuss with President Sadat. Can you go into detail on your expectations from your forthcoming meeting with President Sadat in Aswan?
A: A discussion of all the problems concerning Egypt-Israel relations, and certainly the Autonomy negotiations. We will hold at least two private conversations, and perhaps three, according to the program that was presented to me yesterday. Therefore there should be enough time to clarify all the matters on the agenda regarding relations between our two countries.
Q: You have stated that there now exists greater understanding in the world for Israel's position. Is this understanding in the abstract realm or also in the practical realm? I will be more specific by asking another question, which is actually the same question. As you were leaving for your very first talks with President Carter, you expressed the desire to offer the services of Israeli naval and air bases to the American military. Does this offer still stand, and is the U.S.A. ready to take advantage of Israel's offer in order to strengthen its strategic position in the Middle East?
A: A slight correction: I did not express a desire, but only willingness in the event that the U.S.A. should request what is called "port services" in the Haifa harbour for its fleet in the Mediterranean. I said that I did not think there would be any opposition on the part of the Israel Government to such a suggestion. Such a request was not made, so there is nothing to discuss. I do not think that what I said is applicable only in the abstract; I believe it is a foundation for resolutions which I hope will be adopted and that Israel will be strengthened by them.
Q: What will be the central topic that you will discuss with President Sadat in your forthcoming visit to Egypt? Will the question of the West Bank settlements be the main topic? And will Egypt's position in the U.N. on questions affecting Israel and Zionism be one of the subjects to be discussed.
A: I will not initiate any discussion with President Sadat on the matter of new settlements. For me this is a simple matter: every Jew has a right to acquire land, to build a house, to settle, in the Land of Israel. I emphasize, a natural right. But President Sadat, if he wishes, may bring this matter up for discussion, as is his privilege, and I will reply with our position. The same holds true regarding your second question. As I have already said, I presume that we will discuss all questions relevant to the relations between our two nations. We have the example of the embassies: I certainly intend to bring up the problem, including dates, including staff. There are problems of normalization of transportation, by land, sea, and air; presumably this matter will also come up. President Sadat and I have shown that, man to man, we can talk as friends even if we have differences of opinion; they do not dampen the warm relations that exist between us. I am going to Aswan and there will hold two or three personal meetings with him, in the course of which all questions that each of us has decided to bring up will certainly be brought up.
...
Q: I have two questions, and I don't know which one to ask first. The Government and the Prime Minister have announced that the removal of our settlements in Sinai will not be a precedent for our settlements in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip. Has this decision been weakened or strengthened in the light of recent developments in these areas? And is there no need for some sort of legal-judicial solution, without annexation (since on this there is a resolution); and is anything being done in this direction?
A: I do not think that we need use any other terms than "binding and in force". Let us not apply the word "annexation" to the Land of Israel. One annexes foreign land, not one's homeland. This expression does not apply to the Land of Israel. But I want to emphasize again: the evacuation of settlements in Sinai is not a precedent, and will not serve as a precedent under any circumstances, for Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District.
Q: A peace agreement exists between Egypt and us. The process of normalization is making progress, slowly but surely. We may assume that relations are more or less normal. The question remains, then, why do we object to Egypt's acquisition of new American weapons?
A: I have already answered this question. The, whole problem of arms in the Middle East is a very serious one, because of all the various participants - the U.S.S.R., Europe, and also the U.S. We must study the situation with vigilance and do what is required of us. I will not elaborate further. And we want to establish peace with Egypt and to deepen our mutual understanding and cooperation. That is why I made a distinction between the two countries mentioned in the previous question and said that such are the dictates of reality.
...