On the first anniversary of the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, and on the eve of his departure for Washington, Mr. Begin was interviewed on Israel television and used the opportunity to reiterate his positions on the key issues facing Israel, among them relations with the U. S., Egypt, the issue of settlements, the possibility of amending Security Council Resolution 242 and other items. Excerpts:
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, next month you will meet in Washington with the president of the United States. Do you think that Mr. Carter's defeat in the primary elections in New York and Connecticut will help you?
Mr. Begin: I am an Israeli citizen. I don't interfere in the elections - not in the primaries and not in the final ones - of the United States of America. Therefore, I do not at all consider, from this viewpoint, what happened in New York last night. This is not my business. The citizens of the United States, from the different nationalities of which the United States is composed, voted as they voted. I am going to the United States at the invitation of President Carter. I will meet with him for two days, the 15th and 16th of April, in Washington. I'll hear what he has to say. I'll respond. When I come back to Israel, perhaps we'll have another opportunity to talk.
Q: Mr. Begin, I mean will you be helped by the reactions of the candidates after the elections this morning?
A: This is clear. I will not add a thing, since anything I would say is liable to be interpreted as interference in the internal affairs of the United States. Elections are the outstanding internal political act, the first in degree. It is forbidden, in my opinion, for a citizen of another country even to evaluate them. These are primary elections in the city of New York and the results are known to all of us. Everyone has his own judgment and can draw his own conclusions - but not interfere.
Q: It must be assumed that President Carter will ask to freeze settlement until May 26th. This request by Ambassador Linowitz was rejected by you this week. It must also be assumed that President Carter will also recall that, when the Camp David accords were signed, Israel agreed to a freeze in settlement for three months. The question remains: Why not this time?
A: First of all, I want to say that Israel never agreed to a freeze in settlement. It is true that on September 17th, when we signed the Camp David agreements, I gave a commitment - with the agreement of the Israeli delegation and the Israeli cabinet - that for three months, that is until December 17, 1978, we would not establish new settlements - but we would strengthen the existing settlements. What kind of freeze? Thus, the commitment expired a long time ago, and of course no longer exists, and we exercise our right to settle. The problem of the settlements is not new. On this matter I would like to state simply that there are differences of opinion between the United States and ourselves. On the first day I saw President Carter, in July 1977, he said that, in his opinion, the Jewish settlements in Eretz Israel are illegal and are an obstacle to peace. And I said, with all due respect, Mr. President, in our belief the settlements are legal, it is our definite right that Jews will settle in Eretz Israel, and there is no obstacle to peace. And since then differences of opinion exist. There is no secret. Against this background, if I will be asked, as you said, to freeze settlement - I will respond that this is our right, this is our duty, this is an integral part of our national security, and we must settle.
Q: The question is: If we agreed not to establish new settlements after Camp David, why not agree now to a period of three months or less?
A: It's not clear to me why we have to agree twice to the same thing. We agreed after the signing of the Camp David agreements for only three months, for the period of conducting negotiations with Egypt on the peace treaty between the two countries. As you recalled in passing - although it is undoubtedly an important event in the life of the nation -as it is important in the life of any nation with wars behind it and, all the more so, in the fife of our nation. So we wrote explicitly: For the period of negotiations with Egypt, for three months. It turned out afterwards, that we conducted the negotiations for six months, and we fulfilled what we committed ourselves to: that is, for three months. Why do we have to help commit ourselves a second time to this? Afterwards. they'll say a third time, in connection with another event. If so, there is no end to it. First of all, if President Carter turns to me on this matter and requests, as you said, a freeze - I will have to answer: It is our right, Mr. President, and our duty to settle in Eretz Israel.
Q: Do you not think that the cabinet decision on Hebron will worsen the differences of opinion with Washington and weigh on your talks in Washington - or perhaps you intended to signal the United States and tell it that settlement will continue, even during the negotiations?
A: No. No. No - we did not intend any signal to anyone. We, in our decision on Hebron, simply corrected a distortion - a historical distortion. There was a settlement in Hebron that had existed for generations, and it was destroyed in a terrible, cruel slaughter. And when the problem was raised before the cabinet, whether Jews could live within the city of Hebron, in addition to Kiryat Arba - we could not answer not. Indeed, there were differences of opinion. This is known. But the majority decided yes. And the majority also speaks for the minority - these are the rules of democracy. Let no one say: small majority. In a democracy, a majority of one vote is enough, and we had 100 percent more: a majority of two votes. Absolutely enough. A majority is a majority. Any majority is a majority.
Q: What will you do if the Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee of the Knesset votes in favor of the Democratic Party's appeal against the Hebron decision?
A: When we come to the bridge, we will begin to cross it. I hope that the committee will reject the appeal. If the committee votes for the appeal, we must of course take into consideration the opinion and the will of a Knesset committee. But, as I learned today, there is basis for the hope that when it comes time to vote, there will not be a majority in favor of the appeal. Of course, I must qualify this: I have no certainty of this. I do have hope.
Q: In the past, the U.S. would coordinate its moves with Israel, whereas now the U.S. seems to be coordinating its moves with Egypt, against Israel. Do you agree?
A: It is not always so. It also coordinates with us and consults with us. In these negotiations there were cases when the U.S. supported the Egyptian stands, and there were cases. when it expressed support for our positions. If I were to compare the numbers, I might may, frankly, that there were more times when it supported Egypt's stand than our stand. But we shall see what happens in the future. It is said that we have been witness to a weakening of the support of the American Congress of late. Yesterday, this did not appear to be a correct view (i.e., with respect to the decision to increase aid to Israel). Also, it must be borne in mind that Egypt was for years bound to the USSR, and the U.S. now wants to win it over. There are cases going both ways. But I want to tell you also that in recent days I have heard declarations of support for Israel's stands. Let me give a few examples: The American Vice President states - the first time we have heard this from an official U.S. spokesman - that Jews can live throughout Eretz-Israel, including, as he put it, in the West Bank, or, as we say, including Judea and Samaria. When did we ever hear such a declaration from American spokesmen? Or: President Carter says that Jerusalem must be undivided, with free access to the members of all faiths to their holy places. That is precisely the situation that exists today. Jerusalem is one city, there is free access to the members of all faiths to their holy places - as is also stated in the law, which guarantees this is perpetuity. Q.E.D. It cannot be said that the situation has been fundamentally reversed, sometimes it is like this, sometimes it is otherwise. We have had differences with the United States ever since the establishment of the state.
Q: When you meet with the American Jewish leaders, will you, too, call on the Jews to demonstrate?
A: I do not think I will have to do this. If you are referring to the remarks made by my friend the Agriculture Minister, Ariel Sharon, he did not call on the Jews to go out and demonstrate, he expressed his own personal view. And there were those who had some negative things to say about his statements, and there were others who were satisfied. My own reaction is that Minister Sharon was in the U.S., he said what he said, and these are the facts that are behind us.
Q: Is there any linkage between the essence of the peace with Egypt and the autonomy talks?
A: No. There is no contingency. There was a long debate on this matter, and it was decided that there is no contingency. I would also like to say that we definitely want to fulfill the second part of the Camp David agreement. When all is said and done, the autonomy idea is our own idea. I believe it is a fine Jewish and Zionist. idea: To live together in Eretz-Israel, to live in peace, in mutual understanding, without attacks, without bloodshed. This is the basic idea. Security to be in our hands. It is asked: Can you manage it by May 26th? Yes, if all will be faithful to what is stated in the Camp David accords. I know of suggestions that contradict these accords, or deviate from them - these are unacceptable. But let's say we do not manage to finish by May 26th - will the sky fall on our heads? Will something happen in Egypt? Or in the U.S.? Nothing - we have to carry on with the negotiations, as I have already explained, as we did with Egypt, after the date laid down, on the peace treaty.
Q: If there is no contingency, how do you explain the isolation of Ambassador Ben-Elissar, the attacks on you in the Egyptian press, and even the fact that President Sadat accused you of violating the Camp David accords?
A: He did not accuse me of any violation. He said that if no agreement were reached by May 26th, this would, in his opinion, constitute a violation of the Camp David accords. With all due respect, there is an error here. No date was laid down in the Camp David agreement. The date was laid down in the joint letter from President Sadat and myself to President Carter. A target date was proposed - nor is it correct to say that there is a target date in this letter - it was proposed that we state that the negotiations on instituting autonomy for the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria and Gaza be completed no later than one year. We did not accept this definition, because we knew that perhaps we would finish and perhaps we would not. Nor did we want the murderers organization to hear about any such date, for obvious reasons. Our view was accepted. Therefore, the joint letter states that Egypt and Israel will conduct negotiations with the aim of reaching an agreement within a year of the start of the autonomy negotiations - i.e., May 26th - and once an agreement is reached, it is to be implemented "as expeditiously as possible." So there is no target date, there is no final date; there is a goal, and I hope that it can still be attained. If not, we must continue to negotiate until we reach the agreement.
Q: Are you happy with the attitude being shown toward our ambassador in Egypt? This very day, an Israeli paper published a secret document, signed by both Butros Ghali and Gen. Magdoub, stating that the normalization processes are to be delayed.
A: I do not wish to speak about individuals. I am not sure what this document is, whether it is an original one or not. It is not for us to reply on these kinds of reports. The Egyptian press has been attacking me personally, that is, it is repeating these attacks, for in the past there were already such attacks, and very grave ones, before the signing of the peace treaty. Nonetheless, we did sign the peace treaty. One should not be over-impressed by this. And both President Sadat and Premier Khalil have stated that, in order to show their good will vis-a-vis the Israel ambassador, they would personally extend him an invitation - and I know from a cable that President Sadat has in fact invited Ambassador Ben-Elissar to his village, and no doubt Prime Minister Khalil will also invite him. At all events, there are divergent opinions in Egypt, and one cannot ignore this fact.
Q: According to press reports, there have been contacts between President Sadat and Opposition Leader Peres, and it was said that Sadat hopes that King Hussein will be able to join the peace process if the Alignment gains power. How do you react to this?
A: I did not read the letter President Sadat sent to Mr. Peres, I don't know what is contained in it. Once again, there can be no relying on press reports. I shall not intervene in this, it is none of my affair. If they want to carry on a personal correspondence, let them. I do not want to imagine that President Sadat wrote a letter containing such an open intervention in Israel's internal affairs. After all, it is not he who will elect Israel's government, but our own nation, the citizens of Israel, when the day comes. But I do not want to say that the report is correct or incorrect, because I just do not know. I have no opposition to President Sadat's meeting with the Israeli Opposition Leader, nor have I ever had.
Q: Should there be a deadlock in the autonomy talks, the danger exists that the countries of Western Europe will seek to change 242 and introduce statements about self-determination for the Palestinians. Is Israel ready for such a development?
A: We are receiving reports on this matter. One report, for instance, which is marked by suspicion, says that in fact behind this whole European initiative stands the United States. I have looked into this matter: it is totally without foundation. Earlier, I assumed this to be the case, but following the clarification I may say with certainty that this is not the situation. As to the initiative itself, it is definitely a negative one; the French President's declaration on self-determination is very grave. Self-determination means a so-called Palestinian state, and let it be stated, so there will be no doubts on this matter: This was proposed to us in Ismailiya and we did not accept it, you will find no such expression the Camp David agreement. Autonomy, but not self-determination. And this is no accident: we examined the various concepts, and we selected autonomy. And there is an explicit American commitment not to permit any change in Resolution 242. We also wrote that the entire Camp David agreements are based on this resolution. If it is changed by the Security Council, then the Security Council will be responsible for undermining the basis.
Q: Have you changed your attitude toward the Palestinian issue in the past year?
A: What was I supposed to change? I want a positive solution for the question of the Eretz-Israel Arabs, residents of Judea and Samaria and Gaza. We put forward a very positive solution. By the way, it was the autonomy idea which enabled the signing of the peace treaty with Egypt - and let me note in passing that the idea of what is termed a territorial compromise, that any Arab leader will sign for the partition of Judea and Samaria and Gaza, was totally rejected, by King Hussein, by all the Arab leaders. It was the autonomy idea which enabled the peace treaty to be signed. A Palestinian state? There is no force in the world which will impose this on us. This is a danger to our very existence. A corridor liable to lead to much a Palestinian state conflicts, of course, with the Camp David accords - and, as I said earlier, we remain faithful to those accords. I would also like to reiterate to the free world: This is a danger not only to us, but also to you. This territory would become a Soviet base - in the very heart of the Middle East. After Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan, South Yemen, Ethiopia - does the free world need another Soviet base in the very center of the Middle East, from which one can advance in all three continental directions? After all, it is only a few hours flight time from Odessa to Eretz-Israel. That same murderers organization - you know to whom I refer - lauded the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and termed it "help to a friend". Well, were it to take over this part of Eretz-Israel, what would prevent it from calling in "help from a friend"? For us, it is a danger to our very existence. There can no longer be peace under such conditions. There would be relentless bloodshed. Tel Aviv would be in their gunsights; it is within firing range of the terrorists. It would be a second Lebanon, but on a far more serious and grave scale. Under no circumstances will we agree to this.
Q: The heads of the Judea and Samaria councils have been on a hunger strike for over a week, demanding that Israeli law be applied to their lands. When will you do this?
Q: I am not certain that this is their demand. Their concern - and I understand them - is, lest another petition to the High Court of Justice be submitted, and be detrimental to them. This, after the Elon Moreh ruling. I am dealing with this matter, it is a complex legal issue, the bill must be formulated with all clarity, all kinds of legal questions have to be taken into account, so it takes time. I told the strikers: You do not need this demonstration, don't do it. But they think otherwise, and I regret this. Today, too, I call on them to halt their hunger strike. They want nothing that conflicts with the view of the Government.
Q: Another matter that has been dealt with for a long time is the transfer of your bureau to East Jerusalem. What is the holdup here?
A: It is true that a place was sought, and an agreement was reached, but at the last minute, as sometimes happens - apparently someone began to be afraid - the agreement was called off.
Q: The Arab owner of the building?
A: Correct. We are continuing to look.
Q: Is this to be just your bureau, or the entire PM's Office?
A: Just the Prime Minister's Bureau, that was my proposal. I shall need also the approval of the Cabinet, and I hope it will give its approval. The idea still exists, and I hope to realize it.
Q: If Minister Weizman resigns, will the Government fall?
A: He is not resigning. And you must always remember: When you reach a bridge, you begin to cross it. I read his statement. He denies the press reports. He says that if he decides to tender his resignation, he will first of all inform me. This he has not done; therefore he is the Defense Minister - an excellent one, I believe - and I hope he will continue in his post. Why go into hypothetical questions on a non-existent possibility? Generally, there have already been cases of resignations, and the Government did not fall. This I say on a general basis. The Government continued to fulfill its task. As long as the majority in the Knesset expresses confidence in it, the Government will continue to serve. If there is an absolute majority - by law - 61 Knesset Members at least, who hold that the Knesset should be dissolved before the date set down in the Basic Law: The Knesset, and in that law a date will be set for holding early elections, that is what will happen - everything according to the rules of democracy.
Q: This week Minister Hammer launched an initiative to improve the Government's functioning, including the idea of what Golda Meir called a "political kitchen" of a small number of ministers. Do you go for this idea?
A: No, a "kitchen" such as existed under Mrs. Meir, may she rest in peace, we will certainly not set up. If we decide on a group of ministers, I will ask each coalition party, and each faction within the parties, to choose a representative. But I had a meeting with eight ministers, not just with Minister Hammer. This was an excellent meeting, it gave me great satisfaction. All eight ministers said that we must carry on until the end of our term, then we shall go to the people. There has been progress in many areas: exports are up by 54%, imports are down - that is, the gap has been reduced - flats -are being built, the cost-of-living rise has decreased in the past 3 months, we established settlements by the tens in Samaria, which had been empty of Jews just three years ago. We have done things. And, the main thing: we signed a peace treaty with the largest Arab state, this is a very great event in our nation's annals, and in those of the Egyptian people too, of course. Of course, there are things to put right: that there be no leaks, that there be no attacks by one minister on another, that the ministers not go down after every cabinet meeting and make their own personal announcements. These are things I agreed to wholeheartedly. They said they would speak with other ministers also, and if there is a united opinion by all the ministers, there is really hope that the situation will be amended. The fact is that we had 6-7 months when this is actually how everyone behaved.
Q: When the peace treaty was- signed, just one year ago, the then-finance minister, Simcha Ehrlich, suggested that you call early elections in order to exploit the success. You rejected this idea out of hand. Do you regret this?
A: Absolutely not. Listen, at that time the polls were giving us an absolute majority in the Knesset - but, as we saw in (the New York Democratic primary), this is proof that polls do not always express what the vote will be. I say that there is one decisive poll: the vote in the polling booth. I rejected the idea of holding early elections for one simple reason: The government, with the support of the Knesset - and the majority for the peace treaty was of 90 MK's, a virtually unprecedented majority in fundamental political issues - signed a peace treaty for the sake of the nation, and it should not take advantage of the opportunity to say: If so, vote for us now - nor would I say this. Today, too, I hold by this principle. Let us say that within a year we correct the entire situation, in the economic, social and other spheres, and the polls show that we can get a majority - I shall not propose early elections. We did it for the people, not for the party.
There are no ministers pressing for early elections to be called. Moreover, if the majority of ministers wants early elections, they can inform me, I shall put it to a vote, and if there is a majority, the government resigns - and then, by law, I am duty-bound to go to the president. As for demonstrations - well, in a democracy there are demonstrations. Let us say that there is a demonstration of 10,000, or 20,000 persons - how many Knesset seats is that? Let us say there are 50,000 demonstrators - this will represent 2.5 seats in the next elections. So should we bow our head before such a demonstration? The government will not take any account of this, and "Peace Now" can demonstrate along the whole road from Jerusalem-Tel Aviv-Haifa and back again, and nothing will avail them. The Knesset has confidence in the government and. the government will fulfill its tasks; once there is no confidence, we shall go to the people and there will be early elections.
Q: In the next elections, if you are so requested by your colleagues, will you again head the Likud Knesset list?
A: If I get the confidence of my colleagues - and I hope there will have been another Herut Movement convention by then - and the other Likud and coalition factions also ask that I head the list, I will definitely agree. But I reiterate: even if I am reelected, I have already determined when I shall leave, not the government, but political life - at the age of 70. On my next birthday I will be 67, and I began serving the Jewish people at the age of 16, so that it is already over 50 years. Therefore, I shall regret no date, even if it be earlier. But all depends on my having the confidence of my colleagues; if it is not forthcoming, I will bear no grudges.
There is no monarchy here, and there are no successors. We are all republicans, the State of Israel is a republic. All will be done according to the rules of democracy. The majority will elect whomever it wants to head the fist.