Speaker of the Knesset Yitzhak Shamir was appointed Foreign Minister on 10 March 1980. In this interview, among the first in his new office, he predicted a period of intensive diplomatic activity, hoping that it would yield an agreement on autonomy before the target date of 26 May. We also dealt with the key questions of the future of the Palestinians, settlements in the territories and relations with the United States. Text:
Q: What is your scenario for the next few months with regard to the negotiations about the autonomy plan? Do you believe that one meeting between President Carter, Mr. Begin and President Sadat will suffice to settle all outstanding questions?
A: I foresee intensive negotiations in the forthcoming period - many meetings, much preparatory work, and a sustained and determined effort to reach agreement.
Q: Do you believe the parties can reach agreement by the "target date", the 26th of May?
A: Very possibly, but as has already been said, it will be no tragedy if full agreement on all points is not reached by that date. I assume that even if we do not reach agreement, we can continue after the 26th of May as well. However, it is possible that we shall reach agreement by then, or even before then.
Q: There is one party absent from the negotiations, the Palestinians. If you had been a resident of Nablus, would you have been prepared to accept the Israeli proposal of self-government, and if so why really?
A: Well, I cannot put myself in their position, particularly because we know their attitude. But I think that now is the first time that the Palestine Arabs have a chance of securing something, or making some progress with respect to their standing in this country and in the region. For they cannot gain much from the declarations of European statesmen, not from U.N. resolutions, nor from terrorist activities. The historical experience of a hundred years of conflict between them and us shows that by their extremist behaviour they have been unable to achieve anything in practice. The only concrete proposal giving them today a chance of attaining some serious standing and taking part in determining their standing in the region is the autonomy plan.
Q: Mr. Minister, may one understand you to mean that participation by the Palestinians in determining their individual status is a kind of participation that could lead in the future to greater cooperation between the Palestinians and Israel?
A: Undoubtedly. For what is the essence of the autonomy plan? It is a plan for a provisional solution, lasting a few years which are expected to be years of peaceful coexistence. At the end of this period, which we hope will be a period of peaceful coexistence, the parties will meet again and try to find more stable ways of co-existence.
Q: What future possibilities do you envisage for the maintenance of relations?
A: I would not like to discuss this now. I think neither party should discuss this at the present stage. If all options are left open, it will be easier to come to an understanding today.
Q: Successive Israeli governments have repeatedly stated that they would not negotiate with the P.L.O., but from time to time the question is put, somewhere in the world, what if the P.L.O. alters its basic position and recognizes Israel? How would you answer this question?
A: We are answering all the time - why go into hypothetical questions? The fact is that until today, the P.L.O. leaders, despite the great temptation to say that they are changing their minds, that they are altering their ideology, that they would be more moderate, that they are giving up their design of annihilating Israel - nevertheless do not do so. Notwithstanding the great temptation with which they are faced, so what sense is there in our answering today such hypothetical questions? We don't believe that they can change their own character, for their ideology is their raison d'etre, it justifies their existence, it is the very basis of their existence.
Q: Mr. Minister, the foreign ministry and the diplomats abroad are required to explain and answer one of the most difficult questions that are raised by the information media and by statesmen. This is the question of the new settlements in the "areas". Do you think the government's policy in this matter can be explaining, and how?
A: Certainly, everything one believes in, one ought to be able to explain if one cannot explain a policy, that is a sign that one is not convinced about it, that one does not believe in it. If I believe in the need, even the vital necessity of the new settlements. I certainly believe that I can explain the policy, and I have been doing just this in the last few days. On receiving visitors I tell them, first of all, that the criticism levelled at the policy of establishing new settlements arises from a pre-conceived notion about the boundaries of the state of Israel. Clearly, if political quarters or people in general think that Israel must return to the 1967 lines, then they will obviously be opposed to any Jewish presence beyond those lines. It is even difficult to explain that we have never had boundaries, that we have lived within armistice lines which no party ever wanted to recognize as boundaries until the outbreak of the Six Day War. I don't know what the attitude of those parties is today on this point, but this is where the question begins.
Q: But there have been many leaders who might have agreed to a policy of certain new settlements but were unwilling to agree to a policy of settlement of Jews in the heart of Hebron, for example, or in the heart of Nablus.
A: This is only an internal Israeli debate. People outside, whether they are statesmen or media correspondents, are quite uninterested in this internal debate. They are opposed to the very presence of Israel beyond the lines which they somehow have become used to regarding as Israel's. They are not interested whether it is in Hebron or in the Golan or in the Jordan Valley.
Q: Do you personally approve of the settlement of Jews in Hebron?
A: I support the belief that Jews may settle in all parts off Eretz Israel. Clearly there are questions of priorities, of timing, and various other considerations. This is a matter for the government to consider.
Q: As foreign minister, will you from time to time raise in cabinet meetings the question of proper timing?
A: I shall be taking part in every government discussion and shall offer my recommendations and my advice.
Q: Mr. Minister, next week you are going to take part in the autonomy talks in Cairo. In the past you abstained in the vote on the ratification of the peace agreement with Egypt. As foreign minister how do you regard these agreements, are they being implemented satisfactorily according to their letter and spirit?
A: One might say, on the whole, that the peace agreement is being implemented properly. There are of course snags here and there, for it is not an ordinary routine matter to commence peaceful relations with a state which has been at war with us since the establishment of Israel. This is not simple, and it is therefore not surprising to hear an occasional creak. But on the whole both parties carry out their undertakings, and this progress is in itself encouraging.
Q: Have the dangers which you felt prompted you to abstain at the vote on the peace agreement disappeared now?
A: You have not yet asked me why I abstained. I am not sure I might have told you if you had asked, because today that is not important. Today the peace agreement with Egypt is a fact, we live with it, and the State of Israel must chart its course within the framework of this peace agreement.
Q: Mr. Minister, may I pass to another subject, initiative in Israel's foreign policy under your direction. I find that a year ago, on your return from a visit to the Far East you said in a press interview - and I quote - "the United States might drag small states into concessions affecting their basic positions, and into accepting terms of settlement gravely prejudicial to their basic interests". Do you think that if Israel is today so vitally dependent on the United States - this will happen?
A: This is the problem of almost all countries of the world. Growing dependence of small and medium countries on the great powers is not an exclusive problem of Israel. It is one of her problems too, no doubt, and the less we are dependent on others the better we are, even if it is the United States, which is really most friendly and favourably disposed to Israel, and we have every reason in the world to feel grateful and to do our best to deepen this friendship-everyone will understand that a country which is less dependent on others is in a better and more solid situation, and its chances of success are greater.
Q: Will you take any initiative in the matter of re-establishing relations with the Soviet Union or with other countries of the Eastern bloc?
A: I can't prophesy. I shall look for various opportunities, for this is the function of foreign policy - to look for every possible opening which might help the state.
Q: Do you see any chance of re-establishing relations with the countries of the Eastern bloc?
A: This does not depend on us, but 1 fondly hope that a situation will arise in which we shall have peaceful and friendly relations with all countries of the world.
Q: Communication media in the world have hailed your entry into office with descriptions such as "commander of the Stern Gang who was appointed foreign minister". Do you think your record in the underground movement will hamper you in the discharge of your duties? And how do you intend to meet this challenge?
A: I am not offended by descriptions such as this. It is a normal thing nowadays. The political world of today has become used to seeing people who fought for independence and liberty assuming various functions. And I need not add that I am proud of my record. On the other hand, I don't think this will hamper me in any way. This is the best example. Not long ago I visited England, against whose authorities in Palestine I fought, and I had meetings there with such political leaders as the prime minister, the foreign secretary, and other ministers as well as members of the opposition. I was received with every mark of cordiality and respect. No one referred to my past, except me. I mentioned it. Therefore I am sure this will cause me no difficulty.