Israel-American relations improved considerably when President Reagan sent a message to Prime Minister Begin (11 January 1982) in which he reaffirmed the American commitment to Israel's security. On 20 January, the U.S. vetoed a Jordan draft resolution in the Security Council which called for sanctions against Israel (document 97). But early in February reports from Washington again indicated that the U.S. was considering the sale of sophisticated weapons to Jordan. This was seen by Mr. Shamir as a threat to Israel's security and jeopardy to the prospects for peace. In this interview, Mr. Shamir also discussed the proposed Israeli diplomatic counter-offensive. Other foreign policy matters were discussed, among them Israel's relations with France and with certain African states. Excerpts:
Q: What is your reaction to reports of a new arms deal for sophisticated weapons between the U.S. and Jordan?
A: I hope that the incomplete reports reaching us from a senior official of the United States do not reflect the American Administration's policy. I refer primarily to the announcement on supplying sophisticated American weapons to a country which is in a state of war with Israel. We consider this a grave danger to our security. We think that the supply of sophisticated weapons today to any Arab state in this area does not contribute to peace in the region - on the contrary, it jeopardizes the chances for peace. We shall do everything in our power in order to prevent this dangerous move.
Q: Was Jerusalem surprised by this development?
A: (The subject) has come up in the past, if you're referring to mobile "HAWK" missiles - and as you know, this was rejected at the time by Congress there were some reports and rumors - but this time an announcement has come from a senior personage in the U.S. Administration and this is what is grave.
Q: How are we reacting?
A: ... We have already begun working on the level of the administration in Washington. This will apparently be one of the subjects that our new ambassador in Washington will have to deal with.
Q: How would you describe Israel-U.S. relations today? Is Washington not gradually abandoning Israel as a preferred, friendly nation in the Middle East?
A: The questions you have asked have been asked all through the years and they continue to be asked, and apparently they will continue to be asked - because the problem exists as long as hostile relations exist between Israel and Arab states in this region. And so long as the U.S. is committed to Israel's security and still does not give up friendly relations with Arab states, this dilemma will always confront it and us.
Q: But it gets worse and worse.
A: I wouldn't say that. If we look at the pages of the past, there have been situations no less grave or worrying. I wouldn't say that we are in a grave situation from that standpoint. After all, let us us not forget that the relations of friendship continue between Israel and the U.S. and are expressed in various practical spheres. Let us not exaggerate. True, there are divers tendencies in the American Administration. There are less friendly and more friendly ones as far as Israel is concerned ... We must struggle, explain and be concerned for our interests.
Q: Are you willing to say that it is divided between the Pentagon and the State Department?
A: I wouldn't get too specific in dividing these elements...
Q: By the way, you spoke of precedents in the past. The moment one speaks of arguments with the Americans regarding the supply of sophisticated arms to the Arab countries, echoes of the big fight over the AWACS come to mind. Do you believe that in this present matter with Jordan it is possible that confrontations and arguments on a similar scale to that which occurred regarding the AWACS and the improved equipment for the Saudi Arabian F-15's will develop?
A: I very much hope that the answer is negative and that we will not reach such a point.
Q: Is there a danger?
A: Of course there is such a danger because of the seriousness of the intentions. The matter is serious.
Q: Do you know already when the special envoy, Mr. Habib, will arrive here?
A: We don't know yet, we don't have a fixed date. One can assume that it will be in the next few weeks.
Q: Is there a chance that his mission will succeed?
A: The question is what is success.
Q: That the missiles will be removed.
A: That is exactly what I meant. The prospects aren't, I'd say, particularly bright if the aim is to solve fundamentally the problems which are at the root of the crisis in Lebanon. However, if you define success as an attempt to calm the situation, to postpone the dangers, then there is a chance.
Q: But since the cease-fire, the terrorists are getting stronger, in the sense that they are bringing in huge quantities of arms. Does this not constitute a direct threat to us in the near or more distant future? The public does not understand exactly what happened... Israel was about to go to war...
A: Certainly not. We do not see at this time any danger of war. But everyone in the general public understands that Israel will not permit the terrorist organizations to attack Israel or Israeli citizens without Israel reacting or doing something to prevent such attacks in the future. This is clear to everyone. And it is clear that when the terrorists resume hostile actions, Israel will have to react ... as it has in the past.
Q: What is meant by the resumption of hostilities, what is the range? What constitutes a real provocation which demands an Israeli response?
A: I don't think that I need to detail this matter precisely. It depends on our decision, on the decision of the authorities responsible. It is a matter which has to be considered, evaluated and decided upon. It is not a matter for public discussion.
Q: But we are told that there is a political barrier, namely the cease-fire agreement of last July regarding the southern border between Israel and Lebanon.
A: Well that wasn't the intent. By the way, those who wish to be precise should note that in the cease-fire agreement, it is stated that the hostilities from Lebanon should cease. It does not state whether it is southern Lebanon, or if it refers to any other specific border.
Q: In other words, also groups who receive orders to use Lebanon as their starting point?
A: Yes, you can explain it also in that way. But that is not the problem. Nobody expects us, irrespective of any agreement, to sit quietly while terrorist organizations attempt and succeed in attacking Israeli citizens. We are obliged, it is our duty, to take any action to stop and prevent such activities. Furthermore, I wouldn't suggest that Israeli citizens regard this matter as the main problem which we must deal with, and on which attention should be focused. This is a defense problem, and it is obvious to all that Israel has the appropriate means to prevent attacks of terrorist organizations. Israel's existence is not endangered by these organizations. That is not the main danger or problem. There are many other problems and subjects that we must worry about, and I fail to comprehend the alarm about a war. Who is talking about a war? Israel has struggled for many years against the terrorist organizations and so far no one has regarded this as a war.
Q: Can Israel act against the terrorists in Lebanon without getting involved in a war with the Syrians?
A: If one can judge from the past, this is certainly possible ... It depends on the ... Syrians. The Syrians will go to war against Israel when they decide to do so. It may be assumed that at present they are not interested in doing so.
Q: They have domestic problems.
A: Correct.
Q: They have problems in other areas.
A: Yes, domestic ones.
Q: One could understand from your previous answer that you believe that there are domestic problems which are more pressing than the problems we spoke of.
A: I don't refer specifically to domestic problems, although I think that the
main problems Israel faces now and in the future is how to develop and strengthen itself. However, all such matters regarding our defense and security from the terrorist and other Arab states are secondary matters, which must be dealt with by the authorities in such a way that the State of Israel will be able to function, exist and pursue its daily life.
Q: Everybody is counting the days until April 26 ... What is the next aim the Government and the political leadership have on their agenda after the withdrawal from Sinai? At a time when there are, for example, problems in the talks on the subject of autonomy?
A: Our first duty is to do everything to secure the peace for which we have paid such a high price. Secondly, we must and indeed shall continue the negotiations on autonomy in order to reach an agreement as soon as possible, and such an effort will be made. Thirdly, we must see to it that the comprehensive peace process will continue and will include in time also the remaining countries in our area without relinquishing vital Israeli interests.
Q: When you speak of the continued fulfillment of the peace treaty, what are you specifically referring to?
A: Well, the matter is rather simple. Today, after the withdrawal from the remaining area of Sinai, we are stabilizing the southern border of the country. This will be the first border to be recognized by an Arab element and also by international elements - for example the U.S. To a certain extent, those countries who are participating in the M.F.O. are by this very action expressing their support for the agreement on which the stabilization of this border is based.
Q: Including some European countries?
A: Indeed. There are the remaining borders of the State of Israel. Regarding the eastern border, we will have to continue the negotiations on the autonomy and try to reach an agreement on this subject in order to stabilize this border at least for an interim period. Later on we will have to proceed further - the northern border, and the northeastern border. That is the way, by persisting in our efforts we hope we will reach the target.
Q: In two weeks the French President will be received for the first time in Israel. What do you expect in particular from this visit?
A: First of all, the actual fact that the visit is taking place is important. This is the first visit of a French president in Israel and this "first" has symbolic value. We will have to discuss with our important guest, the French President, all political subjects, those on which we are in agreement and those which we are opposed. We hope that as a result of this visit, and from these explanatory discussions, which we believe will be held in a friendly and cordial atmosphere, a new era in our relations with France and perhaps also with the whole of Europe will begin.
Q: Do you expect any practical conclusions?
A: It is quite possible. The president will be accompanied by a number of ministers and it is possible that in some areas we will reach practical conclusions - or we might decide on further meetings in order to reach such conclusions.
Q: Will you or the prime minister be able to reach an understanding regarding joint political activity ... perhaps in Africa or the E.E.C.?
A: I wouldn't like to speculate at this moment, as it depends on both sides. We on our side will do everything to ensure that this visit will be a fruitful one, with results.
Q: I have no doubt that the President will make statements regarding the Palestinian issue which the Likud government will find hard to applaud Is it known beforehand what he will say?
A: First of all, we will be applauding him personally. He deserves it because of his warm attitude to Israel and its people. We are sure that we will not agree with all he says in his speech. However, at the same time, there will be things which we will agree with. And regarding the main topic which attracts all of the attention, namely the Palestinian problem, we will have to discuss it thoroughly in order to analyse it and comprehend it in depth and ensure that he understands us well. If after having completed these thorough discussions, we conclude that there are differences of opinion between us, then we can decide that despite these differences, we can continue our friendly relations.
Q: When you met with your Soviet colleague a few months ago, were there any results?
A: How can one expect any results from just one meeting? It is a process. Anyway, Israel's foreign ministers have until now, met with their Soviet counterparts once every 5 or 6 years, and consequently it is hard to expect any practical results. It is possible that at some future date one will be able to indicate some results. However, up 'till now I can't indicate any specific thing which will change the relations between us and the USSR as a result of such a discussion.
Q: What is your view of the reports that the USSR is about to renew its relations with Egypt?
A: Well there are reports, I can't comment on reports. It is obvious that Egypt never really broke off its relations with the USSR. They have only been weakened. It is possible that they now will be strengthened. We will respond to this only when it actually occurs.
Q: Are you worried by the fact that the ties are being strengthened, and by Mubarak's comments on the Soviet Union's role in the peace process?
A: We do not agree with everything President Mubarak has said and don't find all his statements reassuring. Egypt (as well as President Mubarak) has a policy of its own. There are a number of facts which, when taken together into consideration, give us cause for concern, namely, the relations with the USSR, with the nonaligned nations and the return to the Arab fold.
Q: You will want to discuss these matters with President Mubarak when he visits Jerusalem. Is there a date for this visit?
A: There is no doubt that we will discuss this matter with President Mubarak and his aides when we meet them. So far no date has been set, however one can assume that it will take place in the near future.
Q: Is President Mubarak "deviating" from the path of his late predecessor?
A: I would not say he is deviating. There are differences, which are obvious to all. Differences in definitions, style, and modes of action. But we will discuss these when we meet him.
Q: Is the U.S. also party to the Israeli fears?
A: I would not like to answer on their behalf.
Q: Could you comment on our future relations with Africa?
A: We are continuing in our constant efforts to pursue, widen and tighten relations with Africa. There are many obstacles before normal diplomatic relations can be established. Any steps we take are immediately publicized and provoke our enemies and the Arab countries into taking countermeasures in an attempt to apply pressure on the African states in order to prevent them from taking such a step. We constantly have to fight this process, and I can only add that continual efforts are being made in this direction.
Q: Is Egypt assisting, impeding or neutral in this matter?
A: I have no answer to this question at this stage...
Q: Is it realistic to expect that the conclusion of the withdrawal from Sinai will give the signal for the renewal of the relations with Africa?
A: It is not linked with the withdrawal from Sinai. The rumors regarding the effect of the withdrawal stem from the rational analysis that since the African states severed their relations with Israel due to the state of war with Egypt, because we supposedly invaded Egypt, then it is obvious that when this reality ceases and there will no longer be any Israeli presence on Egyptian territory, then the reason for the break in the relations will disappear, and they will have to re-establish these relations. This might be a logical assumption; however, decisions and actions don't necessarily follow...
Q: There is the concern that anti-Israel elements will try to use the U.N. resolution to achieve further successes. Are there any such indications?
A: We don't have to search for any signs. We know that this is their object and that efforts will be made to injure Israel through this resolution. There are signs of such attempts. I can't state at this point whether efforts will succeed or whether they are in fact succeeding. This is a matter for the Foreign Ministry, which is dealing with the matter on a daily basis.
Q: In what way are they trying to utilizing this resolution?
A: It is logical to assume that if a resolution has been taken in the U.N. recommending that countries sever their relations with Israel, then someone will approach a certain country and say, this is what was decided by the U.N.; why aren't you implementing it? Or in the case that a country is thinking of renewing its relations with us, it is approached and told: look, this is the resolution of the U.N. which was approved by an overwhelming majority. How can you take such a step? It is used as part of the political arguments and pressure used by our enemies.
Q: Has any soul-searching taken place in Jerusalem regarding the conditions in which Israel signed the cease-fire agreement in Lebanon?
A: I don't think there are any feelings of regret because in the final analysis we must not forget that this agreement was a real achievement for Israel. It stopped the hostilities in which the other side had a certain advantage at one time. The fact is that we hear from different sources that the terrorists are in real difficulty. They are an organization which cannot exist without actions against Israel. Their whole raison d'etre is to attack it. How long can it exist without carrying out terrorist actions? And we succeeded in bringing this organization to this pass, largely as a result of this agreement. Consequently I don't think we should have any regret regarding this agreement.