In this following interview, reproduced in toto, Mr. Begin explained the evolution of his forthcoming visit to Washington and what his expectations were. He also discussed, in detail, his views on the European initiatives, on the situation in the areas administered by Israel, on the P.L.O. and on issues relating to Israel's growing defense burden.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, how do you intend to pursue the talks on autonomy after 26th May?
A: We hope that until the date of 26th of May, which was not in the agreement but in the document, which was the joint letter of President Sadat and myself to President Carter, determined, namely, that Egypt and Israel put before themselves the goal to conclude the negotiations within a year after the exchange of the instruments of ratification and they will start a month after this exchange, in other words - on the 26th of May. I do hope that until then, we can achieve the agreement. There is, of course, one condition that everybody is faithful to the Camp David agreement, as we signed it, exactly - as Egypt and Israel carried out faithfully the peace treaty we signed on the 26th of March last year. During the first time, the whole burden of carrying out the commitment was on our side. Lately there is a normalization, which is a mutual commitment carried out and it is being carried out by both parties, so it should be with the Camp David agreement. The agreement should be kept, but in case they will have proposals which are a deviation from the Camp David agreements or are in contradiction with it until the date of 26th of May, the parties will not be able to reach an agreement. The only result should be the conclusion to continue this issue. It is very desirable that we reach the agreement until that date of 26th May. On our side, we shall do all we can to achieve this goal, but I would like to remind you that in the Camp David agreement, we decided that the time for negotiating the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is three months and we did not meet the date, we continued our negotiations for another three months - that is six months. So it may happen in the issue of autonomy for the Palestinians of Judaea, Samaria and the Gaza District.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, aren't you anxious that President Carter, whom you are to meet shortly, will exert pressure on you in a manner that will enforce you to be in contradiction to your wishes?
A: I met many times President Carter. I never felt any pressure used by him. There are free talks between free men. Everybody uses his arguments, tries to convince the partner to the talks and so it was during my first talk at the White House in July 1977; and then in the subsequent talks which I had with President Carter in Washington, at Camp David and Jerusalem. So there is no question of pressure but a matter of talks, sometimes taken in the form of negotiations, exchanging views and, I expect also that, the forthcoming talks will be of this nature.
Q: After the last development in Washington, what do you expect from your talks with President Carter, and if you think it could lead to a big summit, including Egypt?
A: President Carter phoned me on Tuesday evening and invited me to Washington. For me, it was a complete surprise. I have never received a hint from the U.S. Government or from our ambassador, that such an invitation was going to be extended, but, of course, I accepted that invitation and I asked about the visit of President Sadat in the U.S., and President Carter explained to me that he invited President Sadat to Washington. But this time, there will not be a tripartite meeting. We shall hold separate talks. The date has not yet been fixed, but I think it will be between the 9th of April, which is the day after our Pesach and the 15th. So, for the time being, I can only say that both President Sadat and I were invited to meet personally with President Carter for talks which will be separate. As far as my expectations are concerned, I just expect what President Carter will have to tell me. I will fulfill very faithfully all the commitments under the Peace Treaty, in a certain case with a great sacrifice; and now we have normalized our relations with Egypt, we have a precedent - we have consular relations, we have signed certain Agreements, we have common ventures and I think that this is a very good development in the Middle Fast. After 31 years of a state of war and five actual wars, there is now in the Middle East, one corner - Egypt and Israel - which is peaceful. It is not based on an armistice, a ceasefire or interim agreement, but on a decisive international commitment under a Peace Treaty.
Now about the autonomy: we have the Camp David agreement; we will surely use this document whenever there is doubt. We shall read it and we shall see what commitments there are on both sides.
Q: How come Europe does not approve of the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement?
A: Europe started by supporting the Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel. We were very glad to hear statements from prime ministers praising this Treaty. However, I must say that lately, declarations made by President d'Estaing and Chancellor Schmidt, who used the words self-determination for Palestinian Arabs - this is a very beautiful phrase, used for the first time by Wilson during the First World War, but it became clear from the 1930's in the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia - that it was, misused for aggressive plans. What it means clearly - it means a state - that phrase selfdetermination does not appear in the Camp David agreement. In the Camp David agreement, we decided about autonomy, which is not a state. A Palestinian state in Judaea Samaria and the Gaza District will be a mortal danger to Israel. It would be ruled by the PLO, which is bent on the destruction of Israel. It would be only 14 kilometers from our sea-shore, in the valley, and they will be on the mountains of Judaea and Samaria and the entire population would be under their fire-range. I think it will also be a peril to the free world, because it would turn into a Soviet base.
The PLO has praised the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan and nothing would stop them from inviting them to come here and that would be a danger to the heart of the Middle East. After all the countries that the Soviets took over, like Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, and in Libya, the Soviets have a big arsenal of sophisticated weapons, in South Yemen, in Asia, Vietnam and lately they invaded Afghanistan. We do not want to have a Soviet base in the heartland of the Middle East and those who propagated the idea should know what it means and should understand our anxiety for the security of our people. Such a State would be a mortal danger. Also President Carter said that he opposes a Palestinian state. He used the word - a destabilizing factor in the Middle East. Those declarations of self-determination, as they in fact mean a Palestinian state, are of course, detrimental to the peace process and Europe should be very careful in making statements like these because they saw what happened to the Jewish people.
I would like to add one more remark as far as self-determination is concerned for the Arab people. We always recognized their perfect right, which is expressed in the existence of 21 sovereign States from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. The question is whether there should be added a 22nd Arab State which would endanger the very existence of the only Jewish States as a Homeland for a persecuted people.
Q: Do you think you should have encouraged the Palestinians to abandon the Russian option and join the West?
A: We cannot change the situation. We have documents which prove that the PLO men are being trained in sabotage in the Soviet Union. They even receive a Soviet Union certificate when they are trained in Soviet military schools. They get all their weapons from the Russians, these are the facts. Any suggestion that we should try to influence their point of view and attitude at our expense of security, would be a fantastic demand.
Where is the nation that would agree to such a demand?
Our duty is to warn the free world that if they support such a concept, then in no time this will turn against the West itself. Therefore, Israel really fulfills a very important role for the free world. And with the turmoil now in the Middle East, Israel should not be weakened. To the contrary, it should be strengthened. With such a Palestinian state, which says openly that Israel should be wiped off the map, Israel would be very weakened and its very existence will be in danger. Therefore, Israel cannot accept this idea of a Palestinian State.
Q: Does the European Community have a global policy, or do you see differences among them?
A: The attitude of the nine is not unanimous. There is a difference of opinion between the various governments. Not all the states accept the French attitude.
Q: Will you accept a Palestinian-Jordanian state?
A: What difference would it be for us if there should be a Palestinian-Jordanian state which will be ruled by the P.L.O.? It would be the same danger. There should not be any wonder that at Camp David we looked for a different solution to the Palestinian question. Otherwise, how could we ever reach these agreements? The U.S., Egypt and Israel decided there will not be a Palestinian state. It should be autonomy for the Palestinian Arabs. Otherwise the agreements could not have been possible. So, let us carry out the agreements.
I would like to add that for 19 years Jordan ruled by occupation Judea and Samaria and it didn't occur to them to create a Palestinian state. Where were all these people asking now for a Palestinian state for 19 years when the Jordanians ruled? Or when the Egyptians were in the Gaza strip? Nobody asked them to create a Palestinian state or to join together with Judea and Samaria. They just took this part of the land after the invasion of Palestine during 1948. Now the demand comes up when we defended ourselves in 1967, when Jordan attacked us and other Arab countries surrounded us and wanted to destroy us.
We suggested, it was our idea, for the first time (not the Jordanians), to give the Palestinian Arabs autonomy. What is autonomy? As we all agreed upon in Camp David, to let them to elect an Administrative Council by secret ballot, to conduct the daily affairs of the people. We will withdraw our military government. It is a historic change. We will preserve security because otherwise the P.L.O. will try to create a state which will endanger us,
So, please compare the two eras. There was a Jordanian-Egyptian era in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip, nobody suggested a Palestinian state or autonomy; and now for the first time Israel made this suggestion of autonomy which is a serious advancement.
Q: Do we have to understand from what you have said that the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are ready to join the negotiations?
A: I like to use this opportunity to make some corrections. You use the word Palestinians. I would like you to know that we all are Palestinians - Palestinian Jews. When you say Palestiniansi you mean Palestinian Arabs. We are Palestinians because foreign countries call this land Palestine. In our language it is Eretz-Israel - the Land of Israel. So it happens with many countries, like Japan is called by the Japanese people Nippon and the Germans call their country Deutschland. Palestinian Arabs is the true term, we are also Palestinians - Palestinian Jews. This is my first correction.
Secondly, you said West Bank (Cisjordanie) - this is the territory between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean. You speak of only a small part, of 2,400 km2 which was captured by invasion and aggression in 1948 by the army of King Abdallah and this is not Cisjordanie (West Bank).
Now, to the main question which was the part of the Palestinian Arabs in the negotiations. We did not want to sign a separate peace treaty with Egypt. We wanted to sign a peace treaty with Syria and Jordan as well. We also wanted the Palestinian Arabs to be a part in these negotiations. It is so written in the Camp David agreement and in the joint letter from President Sadat and myself to President Carter. I made such statements in the press and in the Parliament. But they did not join the peace process. We cannot force them, we can only hope and must be very patient. This is a very long conflict and people should not lose their patience. Sometimes negotiations for establishing peace lasted many years. In any case, I would like you to know that we want them to come and participate. We cannot force them and bring them to the table, they must come out of their own free will. Consequently, we in good faith conducted the negotiations with Egypt alone, although the Palestinian Arabs did not show up. Theoretically, we could have said: whoever wants to conduct negotiations with us, we shall negotiate with him, and if he does not, we shall wait until he comes. Hopefully, they will come one day. The idea is positive, it was accepted at Camp David, it should be adopted and carried out.
Why do some people, especially in Europe, forget that there are two parts in the Camp David agreement? One part was realized - the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and there is a second part - which is negotiated, and we hope we will reach an agreement. If we do not by the 26th of May, let us continue until we reach the agreement. The agreement is the key to the solution, there is no other solution. This is what we agreed and this is what we want to bring into operation.
Q: Sometimes we hear that the Europeans are more anxious about their oil supplies rather than Israel's security. Do you think that a danger to the oil supplies to Europe will affect their attitude to Israel?
A: I do not want to make such direct accusation. What I want to explain very simply is this: Whenever foreign observers give us advice on a Palestinian state, self-determination, recognizing the P.L.O. or -negotiating with them, we are duty-bound to tell you, with all due respect, that for you it is a policy. Ours is life. There lies the difficulty. Even if there is an important question you must remember what it may mean to us. It is not necessary for the European countries to conduct such a policy because of oil. Because the oil producing countries cannot drink it, they have to sell it, as we saw after the Khumeini revolution in Iran. Iran still sells oil to America with all the conflicts between the two countries and the hostages now being held and the sharpest words possible against the U.S. by Khumeini himself. But, to go to the Persian Gulf countries and tell them that we shall recognize the P.L.O. because they want so, and then say the Arabs are glad and we are glad because oil will flow. May I add that this policy used to be called in the 30's "Expediency". But it was proved that in the 30's expediency was a materialistic policy. In our times there are very few who pursue such a policy.
Q: Don't you think that one of the main reasons which pose an obstacle to the achievement of peace is the creation of "colonies" in the administered territories?
A: We do not use the word "colonies". The Jews have a perfect right to live in this land. This right which is self-understood is an inalienable right and is exercised as part of our national security. Every such settlement is an obstacle to the P.L.O. to come and murder our people. I know that sometimes this question is being asked by foreign countries, but we will not flinch from doing our duties to defend our people.
Q: Don't you think that the difficult economic problems that Israel is facing, is a threat in the long run, to its independence?
A: We have difficult economic problems, but they are not a danger to our existence. Other countries also have economic difficulties, sometimes smaller sometimes bigger. The source to our difficulties is mainly starting from two reasons:
1. The price of oil - for the sake of peace, we left the Alma oil fields from which we supplied 30% of our annual consumption. We have returned them to Egypt or the sake of peace as part of our commitment. and now we pay a full price, and they go up. Next year we shall pay 2 billion dollars for our oil.
2. The second reason is our defense expenses which is 31% of our GNP. As you know, the U.S. spends only 5% of their GNP or defense and Europe 2-4%.
These two reasons are a great burden on our economy. We have also a gap in the balance of payments which we hope to remove. In the last few months we succeeded to raise our exports and to diminish our imports, mainly in consumption goods. So, we are closing the gap, but this is not enough. We shall have to do more and more. We have also a very serious inflation rate. So, I do not deny we have serious economic problems, but we shall overcome.