In a lengthy interview the Prime Minister explained in detail his relationship with the late President Sadat, the evolution of the negotiations that led to the signing of the Camp David Accords and the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. He also spoke of his hopes of the future. He felt that Israel had fulfilled its share of the treaty and now there must be normalization of relations between Egypt and Israel. He also spoke of the future of the autonomy talks and the situation in the northern border of Israel. Text:
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, as co-partner in the realization of that historic peace movement in the Middle East, and in the absence of your partner in that process, the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, how do-you assess the implementation of the first part of the Camp David Treaty, and how do you look forward to the future?
A: My dear friend, I would like to say a few words about President Sadat of blessed memory before I go into the political question. I met President Sadat for the first time in Jerusalem during his historic visit, which he undertook at my invitation, but I have to say the original initiative was his. It is true that when I formed for the first time the cabinet, I invited President Sadat, President Assad and King Hussein either to come to Jerusalem or to make it possible for me to go to their respective capitals or to meet on neutral ground, let me say in Switzerland and to start negotiating a peace treaty between Israel and the three respective countries, and for many months there was no reply. But one day I read and heard on the radio that President Sadat made a speech to the People's Council, to the Egyptian Parliament, he said on the radio, I quote, I remember the sentence by heart, "I am prepared to go to the end of the earth and also to go to Jerusalem and speak to the Knesset in order to save the life of one of my sons." When he said one of my sons he meant the soldiers of the Egyptian armies. Immediately after that, I invited him to come. He asked for a formal invitation. I wrote it, I sent it through the good offices of the American Ambassadors in Israel and in Egypt and on Saturday night, as you remember, at 8 o'clock, President Sadat arrived here. Since then, we conducted negotiations to bring about peace between Egypt and Israel. Admittedly, there were some difficulties and even crises, but throughout that time we developed a deep friendship between ourselves. During the last year of his life, we used to open our hearts to each other. He used to tell me things which he didn't tell to anybody, and I opened my heart to him. We used even to speak about the tradition of the Egyptian ancient people and the tradition of the Jewish ancient people. Our families became friendly to each other, our Wives, our children and when President Sadat was assassinated, it was a loss, in my opinion, to the world, to the Middle East, to Egypt, to Israel and also a loss to myself personally. I lost a dear friend, and his family were like my own. I said so to Mrs. Sadat, and to Gamal, President Sadat's son, and to the girls and to their husbands. I invited them all, and now I would like to use the opportunity to repeat the invitation to come to our country at any time, and for anything, and they will be my personal guests and the guests of my wife. We have both of us, my wife and 1, deep sentiments, not only for the memory of our dear friend, President Sadat, but also for the members of all his family. Having paid tribute-to the memory of President Sadat, I would like to say that of course, individuals can influence the course of history. However, we used to say to each other, President Sadat and 1, we didn't make peace between persons, the peace is between nations, and when VicePresident Mubarak - with whom also I developed a real friendship during my visits to Egypt and during his visits together with President Sadat to our country -at our first meeting we almost unanimously, almost spontaneously, and simultaneously, said to each other, shaking hands, "peace forever." That was the demonstration of the fact that we make peace not as individuals. But really we used to say to each other -our lives are short, we may disagree tomorrow, surely after a certain period of time, President Sadat used to say, "I won't be President,"; I used to answer, "I won't be Prime Minister", but our nations will live forever. And therefore, the peace is between the nation of Egypt and the nation of Israel. And that is indeed the character of the peace treaty President Sadat and I signed while the President of the United States, Mr. Carter, who did very much for this achievement, signed as a witness. Now, we are nearing the date of the 25th of April, next Sunday, when we shall hand over the rest of Sinai to our Egyptian friends. Some people call it withdrawal. It is also used, I am referring to the word withdrawal, in the peace treaty.
I don't object to the words, but I would like to say it would, from the point of view of our future relations, I do believe, that it is no retreat and no withdrawal, to the country it is an advancement, it is an advancement towards peace. We waged, in the period of nearly 30 years, five wars. Statistically, it would mean every six years a war. It is unprecedented in the annals of mankind. nations used to fight, but they always had periods, long periods of peace. There was a 100 year war between England and France, there was a 30 year war between England and France, there was a 30 year war in the center of Europe, there was almost eternal enmity between France and Germany, but they had a peace period between 1871 until 1914, which means nearly 44 years of absolute peace. Then came the First World War. Then came again a period of nearly 20 years of peace, and then came the Second World War, the most horrible of them all. But, again, I repeat, nations had periods of peace. We didn't have, actually one day of peace for nearly 30 years. And, as I said, in those intervening years we had to fight in the battlefield five times and shed our blood. I would like to say that one moment we shall never forget: The meeting of President Sadat and myself at El Arish, when we transferred El Arish to Egyptian soil. And there, when President Sadat told me that he is going to bring along with him a group of Egyptian soldiers wounded in the wars, I said, would you agree that I will bring also a group of Israeli soldiers wounded in the war? He immediately accepted. And those two groups met at El Arish. One that didn't see that scene wouldn't believe that it could have happened. Soldiers without hands, without legs, invalids for their lifetime, from both sides, met after five wars. They embraced each other, they kissed each other, and the repeated slogan was - never again, never again. III never forget the proceedings. I don't think there has ever been such a meeting in the annals of other nations. So, this is the peace I believe in and as I got the letters of President Mubarak, my friend, I do believe that this is also his attitude. So, although we made great sacrifices, and I would like to tell you I got in the morning a phone call from my friend and colleague the defense minister, telling me what is happening just now at Yamit - great tragedy, 5,000 soldiers have to struggle with 1,000 men, women and children that don't want to move. We will not shed blood. The soldiers are disarmed, they can only use their bare hands, and little children lay before the buses. It's a great tragedy, a great trauma, but we honor our signature and our commitment. Next Sunday, that part of Sinai will be under Egyptian sovereignty, and We shall withdraw behind the international border. Great sacrifices, real tragedy, real trauma, but I believe it is to be done. We do not retreat, we advance towards peace. And the advancement is from both sides. And so, let us hope, that peace will reign between our nations forever.
Q: So, sir, you look forward to the future as an advancement towards peace after next Sunday?
A: Yes, Madam.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, April, as you have witnessed, and we have all witnessed with you, has been an emotional month for both sides, Israelis and Egyptians. It has revived the times when the Israelis used to ask one question: What after Sadat? We think on our part, that it was very difficult for any man but for Premier Begin to do this step, and we also ask, what after Mr. Begin, and what will be the future of the peace process then?
A: Well, I think I answered this question actually, during the reply to the first one, and I can add, yes, it was a difficult step to make. The truth is that at Camp David, I did not agree to evacuate our settlers from northern and southern Sinai. President Sadat asked for the evacuation, but I explained both to him and to President Carter that it is not just. The men are good men who didn't do any wrong to anybody. They came to a complete desert, and with their hard toil they snatched out of the desert a piece of land, turned it into a green blossoming garden - wonderful agricultural settlements, a beautiful town - why should they be evacuated? One night, it is true, I convinced President Carter that they should not be evacuated. And he told me, "Now let me speak to President Sadat." President Carter went to President Sadat and tried to convince him that some arrangement should be found so that those people should be left under Egyptian sovereignty but still continue their lives in their homes and with their children and families, etc. But later President Carter spoke and said, Mr. Prime Minister, I'm sorry, I couldn't convince President Sadat. He answered me, we have to have all the territory of Sinai, and used a very sharp expression. As he said to me during our meeting at Ismailia - if I should leave your people the Sinai, my people will stone me. As I said, it was a sharp expression. Of course, very dramatic. I could have said, if I decide to evacuate them, my people will stone me. And may I say, indeed, there may now be some people at Yamit who perhaps are prepared to stone me. But when you are elected to conduct affairs of your nation, you have to know to take responsibility. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions. I did not agree at Camp David to evacuate our people from northern and southern Sinai, but I said to President Carter, I will bring this question before our democratic parliament and the vote will be completely free from party discipline. Every member of the Knesset will be able to vote in accordance with his conscience. And indeed, when I came back home, I suggested that two votes be taken in Parliament - one to ratify the Camp David Agreement, and the other specifically regards the question whether to evacuate our people from the Sinai areas in the north and the south or to leave them there. I cannot say now what would have been the result of a government vote not to evacuate our people from Sinai, because it belongs to the past. It is now a footnote, and it is useless to go into what I may call retroactive prophecies, but this was my suggestion. Our opposition demanded one vote, combining both the questions of approval or disapproval of the Camp David Agreement and the evacuation of our settlers in north and south of Sinai. Then, by a combined vote, we had to made a choice between peace and not peace, ,and therefore there was no option for anybody who wanted peace but to vote for it, in favor. And so we voted in favor of peace but also including the evacuation. The vote was overwhelming -' more than 100 members out of 120 voted in favor, both the government and the opposition. Already that included the evacuation. So, the decision about the evacuation of our settlers from Sinai was taken here in Jerusalem, not at Camp David. At Camp David there was still a great fight to leave the people
there. But after we took the decision in parliament, after we signed the peace treaty, after we took upon ourselves the commitment for three years after the exchange of the instruments of ratification, meaning April the 25th, 1979. Then we exchanged the instruments of ratification, three years later we took upon ourselves the commitment to withdraw to the international boundaries between Mandate Palestine and Egypt of our forces and our civilians, that is our commitment, we had to fulfill it and we shall, on Sunday, April the 25th 1982, in other words, three years after we exchanged the documents of ratification of the peace treaty.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, in your book, The Revolt, you said that whatever position I may hold it would never compare with the national and human importance with what my friends and I did in the underground during our fight for the liberation of our people. Can we compare the moments of today to what you have said a long time ago?
A: No, no moment ever in my life can be compared to the time when we fought for the liberation of our people. I will explain why this is so. Until this very day when I sit with you in the office of the Prime Minister, we actually achieved great historic things. The main achievement, I believe, is peace between Israel and Egypt. The other achievements stood - I still say, nothing can be compared to that period in which my friends and 1, in the underground, being hunted by an army of 100,000 British soldiers and 30,000 policemen, never having left the country for even one day and continued fighting for the liberation of our people and our country, Why? We were then a small minority within a minority. Indeed, a few thousand men and girls, we didn't have many arms - we had very few arms. I suppose I can see had the British known how many arms we had perhaps they would have never left Palestine. But they had the impression that we are a great force. I will give you an example. If you remember, we stormed the Acre Fortress and liberated our prisoners. That Acre Fortress which Napoleon's artillery couldn't conquer. We opened it up in a battle of the few against the many and we set free our men. In those days there was a quote by the High Commissioner, General Cunningham, that perhaps it is impossible to stop such operations by the underground because the men are prepared to die, and the main strategy of those operations from the underground is that a group of men goes forward with explosives on their backs, and another group covers them with machine guns. And the High Commissioner himself, an old soldier, says, perhaps it is impossible to stop such an operation if the men are prepared to give their lives. And indeed, everyone of us was prepared to give his life. The British, perhaps in the beginning, didn't know that during the course of our fight we learned that this is a fact. This is a source of great strength, and what is it? You must understand, in the forties, our people lived through its greatest tragedy and the greatest tragedy ever noted in the annals of mankind. Since creation there has never been a process of annihilation of a whole people for six years - man, woman and child we lost a third of our people. To make it clear to you, madame, I would like to tell you that today it would have meant the loss of nearly 15 million Egyptians between 14 and 15 million Egyptians killed - imagine the tragedy. Could the Egyptian people bear it? No nation could have borne it. In America it would have meant 75 million people killed. And we incurred such a loss - a third of our people, we were nearly 18 million - 6 million were killed. Unprecedented, unheard of, let us believe it will never be repeated. Nobody came to the rescue of our brethren. Two nights ago, it was Remembrance Day for our parents and children killed during the years of the Second World War, and a film was shown on our television about the Holocaust. A documentary, everything was original, and someone vowed to me that I had to see it. Thousands, tens of thousands, millions of people pushed into the cars of the railway - men, women and children; children in the arms of their mothers. Several hours later, they became ashes. They were gassed and their corpses were burned in ovens, built by certain efforts of German firms, Krupp and his sons. It never happened in the history of mankind. And nobody came to the rescue nobody came to the rescue. That happened in the forties. Palestine was promised by the British to become the national homeland for the Jewish people. But during those years, Palestine was completely shut off to our people. And when some refugees came from hell, they were thrown out, deported to Mauritius, in the Indian Ocean, with the message that you will never see again this country. What should we have done? What could we have done? We rose in revolt. We have to liberate our country, we have to bring our people here. And we have to create conditions in which never again will there be such a Holocaust. Never again will murderers be able to kill Jewish children. We lost in the Holocaust one and a half million of our little children. And we fought. And our men were executed on the gallows. And they sang when they went to the gallows. And we used to go out, the few against the many, against an Empire, against a great army, always armed men against armed men. We revolted - five years of our fighting and we never touched a British woman or a British child. Never, and the British know it. We used to say after our battles, it was a fair battle. Because there is fairness amongst the British people, tradition.
However, the policy was horrible. We couldn't rescue our people. So therefore, let's fight under the circumstances which I described to you - in a nutshell, of course - are so unique, that I said time and again, before I became Prime Minister, and the ' n I repeated it for the last five years since I am Prime Minister, no office in the world, ever, will be compared to that period. You identify yourself with the very idea of liberty, with the very concept of national survival and human dignity. You know that at any time you can be captured, hanged, shot, you will lose your life.
And you are prepared to do so. No problems whatsoever, it was, either for the commanders or for the soldiers, for the fighters. And we were like one fighting family. Indeed, that was the name we gave to the underground group - a fighting family. We used to stand with all strength behind our fighters. We tried to save the men condemned to die even at the price of the lives of our men. Every one of the fighters knew that the whole strength of the organization will be behind him if he's captured, if his life is at risk. There was great love, absolute confidence. And so, from day to day, from night to night, for five long protracted years, we fought for the survival of our people and the liberation of our country. That is incomparable to anything else.
Of course, I am proud to be elected Prime Minister of Israel. It is a great task, a great responsibility - my work is important. But if you ask me, can you compare it with the work between 1944 and 1948 - no. That period is higher, morally, more than anything else that may happen in my life.
Q: Not even, Mr. Prime Minister, by achieving peace?
A: Including anything, my friend. Achieving peace is one of the greatest achievements. But again, I say, the fight for liberation, especially under the circumstances of the Second World War with the physical destruction of our people, is absolutely unique - and so it will stand, as I believe, until the last day of my life.
Q: Thank you, Prime Minister. Will you allow me to be as frank as possible and "doghri" (straight) as possible in my questions? This moves me to pose another question. After April, if in fact the plan is embraced by the Arab world, after the Israeli withdrawal, which in a way means the acceptance of the Arab world of Israel - would there be any historic option open to Israel vis a vis the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the context of a good will gesture on the part of Israel towards the Arab world in general, and the Palestinians in particular?
A: Yes. First of all, I would like to assure you, we want to live with our Arab Palestinian neighbors in peace, in human dignity, in mutual respect, in socioeconomic advancements. We suggested a solution for the problems of the Palestinian Arabs in Judea/Samaria, in my language - in the West Bank in your language - and let us agree that each one of us will use his own tongue and the expression he is used to. And the solution is full autonomy. That is accepted and agreed upon on the
basis of the Camp David Accords and as President Mubarak wrote to me in his letter of 20th April, we shall after the 25th of April continue with negotiations about how to bring into operation the autonomy plan. Indeed, for a transitional period of five years - but five years is a long period in our time. I do hope that if the autonomy becomes a fact, and we together under these provisions for five years, both Arabs and Jews, they will see that we can live together, that we don't have to draw a border between us. Certainly not barbed wire, as it existed in Jerusalem. That we can work together, and build up this country together. May I say as I appealed in the Arabic language to our Arab neighbors, in 1947 and 1948, before the tragic war broke out between us and we spread those leaflets in Arab towns like Nablus, in our language Shchem, the historic Shchem, Tulkarem, Jenin, in the villages - stay with us, let us together build up this country. I would wish they would have heeded that appeal, from the underground, from the (unintelligible). But it was not to be, and therefore, the tragic war did take place and then came other wars, etc. But that belongs to the past, let us think about the future. And again, I repeat, if we agree on the autonomy - full autonomy - namely the Palestinian Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza District, will democratically elect their own Self-Governing Authority,
Administrative Council. We suggested almost all possible functions to the autonomy.
I will give you one example. For instance, in Belgium now, autonomy was given both to the Flammands - who speak Flemish, which is actually very nearly Dutch - and to the Walloons, who speak French. But the central Government reserved finance, education, justice, security, foreign affairs. We didn't talk about foreign affairs, because autonomy is no state. Security, of course, we must reserve, because otherwise there will be permanent killing by the organization that calls itself PLO - both of Jew and of Arab. But, justice, education and finance we give to the autonomy. We do not reserve it for the Government of Israel, and nine other functions - religious, communications, education, etc. etc. 13 functions, I may say again, it is almost a quasi-government - it's a self-governing authority. But from the point of view of the functions, the daily affairs will be conducted without any interference whatsoever by the Israeli Govermental Authorities, by the elected representation of the Palestinian Arabs itself. It will be an historic change: For the first time after Turkish rule, the British rule, the Jordanian rule, the Palestinian Arabs will have their elected representation, and this is what we suggested. Now let us accept it, let us carry it out, let us at least give it a chance, for five years, then we shall see. Everybody after five years will have a right to claim what he thinks is his right. We, of course, I would like to tell your people in complete sincerity as you in candor put to me the question - I believe we have a right to this part of the land - look at those mountains. In those mountains our nation was born. In that part of the land our kings ruled, our prophets made their prophecies about the time of peace, around Jerusalem, and up there to the north in Samaria. We have an absolute, historic right to that part of the land. However, we say, now we do not decide about this problem. We will have a transitional period. After that, every side will come and explain. However, in the meantime, five years, again I repeat, is a long time. We can try to get together and then perhaps we shall so continue. So we suggested a human and humane solution to the problem of the Palestinian Arabs - only it should be given a chance.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, if such an agreement could come forward after April, would Israel be ready to set a moratorium on the settlement building in the West Bank?
A: No, its not necessary at all. Why should it be postponed, what is moratorium? Its a beautiful Latin word, but actually it means to stop settlements. You are very kind, you use kind words, but why should we postpone settlements, of what? It is an empty land. I would like you to go with me for a few hours in that part of the land you can see. There are three towns, there are a number of villages, but it is empty. Why shouldn't people come there and settle - where do they settle, on the rocks which were uncultivated for perhaps millions of years, not only for thousands of years. Now they settle those rocks. What wrong is it? They don't evict anyone from his village, from his town. If you make a visit to what you call the West Bank, the Judea/Samaria, you will see how there is going on construction unprecedented. Villas, beautiful houses, the standard of living rose hundreds of percent of the people, and we like it, we approve of it, and of course, everybody studies in his own language - Arabic is the same language as Hebrew in that part of the Land, and Arab history, and of course Islam, everything is free. So why should we not enable people to go there and live there. Now, Arabs and Jews live together in Jaffa, in Haifa, in Lydda, in Ramla, in Acre, in all parts of the Land. Why should Jews and Arabs not live together in Samaria and Judea - in peace. So there is no reason whatsoever to postpone or to interrupt the process of people living in those parts of the Land.
Q: But Mr. President, if a Sadat-style Palestinian would emerge, would the settlement problem be negotiable in the West Bank?
A: What problem?
Q: The settlement problem, for the Palestinians, or Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank?
A: I never said anything about non-negotiability. Everybody has a right to put out his claim. But I told you what is my opinion. My opinion is that after the transitional period we shall put out our claim to our paternal right and then, if it is decreed that it should be Israel's sovereignty over that part of the Land, we will keep autonomy, full autonomy for the Palestinian Arabs, under all circumstances. We don't want to wrong anybody, so under any political arrangements we shall make sure that our neighbors, the Palestinian Arabs, enjoy full autonomy.
But that is a problem we don't have to discuss now, my friend. There is a problem after which first of all we agree about the operational part of the autonomy. Now I would like to come back to President Sadat. When I met him for the last time in Alexandria, he said to me, and then repeated to a press conference in which journalists from all over the world participated, the following. He said: I don't want the PLO to participate in the peace negotiations. I just don't want them to. We have to agree, the three of us, Americans, Egyptians and Israelis about the autonomy. And then he added, if we agree, what is going to happen if the Palestinians don't accept our agreement. And then he himself answered, after a pause, and then - we used always to call each other by our private names - and then, Menachem, we did our duty. I must say, I was to a certain extent astonished when I heard him repeating that statement to the press conference in public, word by word, literally what he told me. And Dr. Butros Ghali was with me some 10 or 12 days ago in this very office. I quoted President Sadat and Dr. Butros Ghali said: I was at the press conference. I heard President Sadat say exactly what you say, Mr. Prime Minister. And now, I say, as President Sadat told me - first of all, let us have this second agreement, to which President Mubarak committed himself again in the letter of the 20th of April to me. Then, let us have a transitional period of five years. Now, nobody can drag anybody to the voting station. Of course, the people should go willingly and vote and elect the representation. We cannot force anybody, we suggest, by the by, that men and women should vote. I believe in equality of men and women. They say, perhaps, in our country perhaps the men will one day have to fight for equality of rights with the women. Perhaps it is also my family experience. But, we suggest men and women, all of them, go and vote, but they have to go out of their own free will, we will not force anybody to go to vote. Its not done, certainly not in a democracy. And we don't want to frighten anybody like it is the practice in totalitarian countries. It's a free country, and therefore, if the people get convinced and they go to the polls and choose their own representation in a free secret vote - by the ballot, not by the bullet - by the ballot and then autonomy will start, then there will be a new life, because we shall withdraw the military government, as we undertook. An historic change it will be. And afterwards, in five years, we shall see what will happen and how we shall live together. So, this agreement is very important, and I appreciate very much what President Sadat wrote to me, that we, after the 25th of April, will continue negotiating and we shall negotiate, I quote, "until we reach agreement". But if the people don't accept it, what can we do, what can anybody do? So, the status quo until then will continue. There is no other option. Therefore, it is important that people of good will should influence our neighbors, the Palestinian Arabs, that they should accept autonomy. They shouldn't see in it, as the hostile propaganda that goes on in several countries, a wrong. It is to the contrary, a great step forward - I would say a leap forward - for their rights as individuals and as a people. We always wanted peace with our neighbors. As I already mentioned to you, from the underground, I wish my own hands wrote those appeals to the Arabs stay with us, we will live together in the same country. It will be free, democratic, the British will leave. And this is my opinion today as well. But again, I repeat the statement of President Sadat. We have to agree, and now we did our duty.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, under this full autonomy, if it happens, would there be room for allowing Arab assistance to flow into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for development purposes?
A: Arab representatives?
Q: Arab assistance, money. Arab money.
A: I think so.
Q: No problem in this?
A: No, I don't think there would be any problem. We have open bridges now over the Jordan River, and I think Jordan all the time sends money.
Q: But there is a restriction - 3,000.
A: I must say I don't know all the details, but in my opinion, and I can only express now my personal opinion, that such assistance should be allowed to come.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, this is a very very personal question. You are a man of peace, and you've made peace. You had moments of war, lots of moments of war. You don't ever feel any fear of extremists from both sides on your personal life?
A: Fear of what, for personal safety?
Q: Yes.
A: Never. Not even for a minute. I was for five years in the underground. You know where I lived? In the center of Tel Aviv, around the Habima Theatre. And any time, any minute, day or night, the British police or military could have burst into my house and I have no doubt they wouldn't have brought me to trial - on the spot they would have opened fire and that would have been the end of it. But I slept well every night, and I was fresh during the day. It never occurred to me, it never occurred to my wife, she knew everything, and we lived together for four years. Of course we have to change places, sometimes I had to leave home, and my wife gave birth to two children in the underground, under assumed names. No, we never thought about the danger to ourselves. I will give you the reason, not because I brag about so-called heroism. We are not heroes, we are simple people. Because of events which took place in the forties with our people, our families, our children - how could we have feared if we knew that every day the trains go there with thousands of our people to the end, to get killed? How could we have feared, or think about ourselves? We did not. Now, as you know, I came for the funeral of President Sadat. Some people used to warn me, you know, President Sadat was assassinated by an officer of the Egyptian army, anything could happen to you. I didn't give any thought to it. It so happened, that after the funeral, my friends and 1, we went on the main road, and in the opposite direction came a unit of soldiers, and nobody used his sub-machine gun against me. We greeted each other. I was not feeling any danger. We can't think about any personal danger because of all that happened to our people. It would be ridiculous to think about ourselves. Imagine, imagine, millions of people, simple, average, bread-winners, had to sacrifice their lives - only because they are born Jews. Should we, elected men, by our people, think about our own safety? It never occurred to us, it will never occur to us in the future.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, can I switch to Lebanon? I mean, it wasn't on my questions, but the air raid attack, I had to put it on my questions. On Sunday we open a new page in the history of Egypt and Israel. Wouldn't this really cloud the atmosphere a little bit that Israel has bombed Arabs? A: I don't know whether it will cloud, but it shouldn't. I will explain why. Lebanon goes through a horrible tragedy. It's a beautiful country. For nearly twenty years the border between Lebanon and Israel was the most ordered, calm border of all the others. Pastoral life on both sides. Neighbors used to greet each other over the border. Sometimes cows used to wander from one country to the other and were immediately returned. It was wonderful, peaceful, completely peaceful. But for the last six years, Lebanon is torn to pieces. There is the Lebanese Army which disintegrated, Christians and Muslims apart. There is the PLO, 20,000 men, armed, with heavy weapons supplied by the Soviet Union directly and indirectly through Syria and Libya, and you should know what arms they have now. Katyusha missiles range 21.6 kilometers. Heavy guns, 130 mm, range 27 kilometers. The heaviest gun of all, 180 mm., range 43 kms Tanks, some of the obsolete, admittedly, T-34 - but they have also T-54 and 55, which are quite good tanks, although it is true there are no T-62s and 72s, even which is the best tank now on earth. But T-55 is quite a modern tank. All these weapons they have, ammunition, unlimited. Now they attack our civilian population in the North of our country, places like Kiryat Shemonah, Nahariya, Kfar Giladi, Metullah, villages, all the time. What should we do? I ask this question every nation. Would any nation in the world accept this situation, doing nothing, in which the civilian population, their citizens are being attacked, wounded and killed? Let me imagine, that from Libya come people and kill Egyptians. Wouldn't Egypt react?
Interviewer: Yes, it would.
Mr. Begin: Would it sit by idly and see its citizens killed by Libyans? May I disclose to you, it is now perhaps the time to say so, when I met President Sadat he told me that at the time the Libyans attacked Egypt, that then he carried out an act of retribution, very severe, and it stopped. I don't want to repeat the numbers of people who got hurt in that act of retribution. It's not my duty and I don't think it is my right, because the man is no more alive - he didn't give me permission to disclose it. But I can say, because both the Egyptians and their neighbors know of it, there was an act of severe retribution and then bloodshed stopped. Now there are peaceful conditions between Libya and Egypt, although Mr. Kadaffi is a strange man. I don't want to add anything else. No nation would ever tolerate or suffer the shelling of its citizens, of its civilians, on either side of the border. There were two wars between Mexico and the United States - one during the time of Lincoln and the other during the time of Wilson. Both great humanitarians in the history of the American people and the history of mankind. And after Abraham Lincoln, the liberator, Wilson, the great man of peace, and under their rule there was a horrible war in Mexico. Why? Because Mexicans used to intrude into American territory and kill its citizens of the United States. So now, I could make more historical analogies, enough of it. I can only say, no nation would tolerate such a situation. We reached, in July last year, with the help of Mr. Philip Habib, a kind of agreement - it's not signed - of cessation of hostilities. Neither should there be attacks upon Israel from Lebanon, nor attacks from Israel against Lebanon. And as long as it was kept, we didn't do anything. Then we exercised over-restraint: There were bombs in Petah Tikva, in Jerusalem in the supermarket - we dismantled them in time before they exploded. The danger was that they may kill a large number of people, But as there were no casualties, we didn't do anything. Lately, my friend, a sergeant got killed in Gaza, and from Beirut came the declaration "we did it". One of the components of the PLO. A Druze, one of the members of our Border Guards, a wonderful unit, got stabbed in the back by a man of the PLO, and he died of his wounds. To me, a Druze soldier is the same as a Jewish soldier. He is a citizen of our country, and he was a good /soldier. He died of his wounds. Then a diplomat in Paris got killed, before the eyes of his wife. Yesterday, a young officer, 21 years old, the grandson of one of my most beloved friends, hit a mine and got killed. Scores of people wounded. How long can this go on? I must tell you - we never took a decision to invade Lebanon. I said so to the American Ambassador. Several weeks ago, there were headlines throughout the world that at any moment Israel may enter Lebanon. The truth is, that we didn't take such a decision. But, in all my talks with President Sadat as well, he understood it, and 'with our American friends, and our French guests, when President Francois Mitterrand visited our country with any other people, we always repeated it - never again will the blood of our people be shed and those responsible for its shedding will enjoy impunity. Never again. That happened only between 1939 and 1945, and it won't be repeated. We want peace, we hate war. It is not a coincidence that people of the underground made peace with you, because people of the underground hate war. why? I will explain rationally. In the underground the man who fights is your brother, is your son, is not a soldier to be counted statistically. And I remember it was done before D-Day in Europe that night in the General Headquarters they made up statistically the number of losses they may incur when they invade Europe. In the underground there are no statistics - every man is either your brother or your son. And when he doesn't come back, you mourn him for a lifetime. And therefore, we hate war and we want peace. But can we sit idly and see the PLO shelling our villages, towns, killing our people? They carried out a massacre until July 1981 - three of our men were killed, 29 wounded. And one of the three men was a survivor of Auschwitz. Imagine our feelings. So yesterday we hit back, because again, I repeat, never again shall we allow our blood to be shed and those who shed it will go responsible for its shedding will enjoy impunity, perhaps even luxury. No, it won't be repeated. Now, if they keep the peace of yesterday, we shall keep the peace. If they try again to raise their hand against our people, we shall hit them even harder than yesterday. But this is a warning, we prefer peace and indeed, if there is peace from the other side, there will be peace from our side. And I believe that the noble Egyptian people will understand this situation. They have their own experience. Therefore they should understand our reaction to attacks upon the civilian population.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, you said that if they attack you, you will attack them. But this will go on into a vicious circle.
A: No, it can't go on in a vicious circle. I tell you simply. If they attack us, we shall counter-attack more severely than yesterday. If they shower with their missiles or artillery our civilian population, then we shall consider the possibility of entering Lebanon - not in order to conquer territory, we don't want even a millimeter of Lebanese territory - but in order to smash the Infra-structure, the guns, the missiles of the so-called PLO. Let us hope it won't come to that.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, do you send to Iran any spare parts or weapons?
A: Well, there is a tradition in the British Parliament, whenever a Prime Minister is asked anything about weapons, the Prime Minister says, this is not a matter for public declarations.
Q: Will you not answer me?
A: I did answer you.
Q: No, you didn't confirm or deny it. Alright Sir. I have two more questions. Egypt has pledged that the October war will be the last of wars between Egypt and Israel ... What will be the pledge of the Prime Minister of Israel to the generations to come? What will be your pledge?
A: Yes, I repeat, never again nations throughout the world.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, you have called for the necessity of the formation of a government made of a national coalition. When do you anticipate such an event, and what's the consensus with each for general elections?
A: I would like to have a government of national unity tomorrow. But if you can meet my colleague, opponent and friend, Mr. Peres, ask him when he will give his acceptance and his agreement to that idea.
Q: I met him already.
A: You did.
Q: He said he did not exclude the possibility. But what are the conditions for it, Sir?
Q: There are no conditions. We can work on the autonomy basis because Mr. Peres, some two months ago, declared in Parliament that also his party supports the autonomy idea. So we can work together. At least for five, six years - it's a long period of time. As far as the composition of the government is concerned, that depends on the numbers. I would suggest that there will be one minister to six members of Parliament. So if the opposition arm which counts 48 will joint, all the 48 of them, they will have eight members, and we shall have eight members. Equality. If they lose some, of course, proportionately, it will be diminished.
Q: That is, if there is general elections, right, Sir?
A: Without elections. But if there should be elections, I hope we shall win.