After explaining the Israeli position on Lebanon, Mr. Shamir made reference to the Israel Labor Party criticism of the government's handling of the crisis, and argued that at times of national emergency there must be consensus of opinion on the Syrian missiles issue, and the country must stand firm behind the government. Text:
Q: Mr. Foreign Minister, could you define the roots of the Israeli-Syrian conflict, as it is today?
A: For a long while we have been facing the Syrians on Lebanese territory. What is the confrontation about? Syria has consistently and diligently been trying to gain complete control over Lebanon with the aid and cooperation of the terrorist organizations. If, heaven forbid, they achieved this aim, a very grave security threat to Israel will be imminent and then, without a doubt, a war will break out, a war between us and them, under harsh conditions. For many years Israel has been making an effort to prevent this development and thus avoid a war, to prevent this threat from approaching Israel's border. Israel has been doing this all these years, by going up to the brink without becoming involved in the flare-up of an all-out war. The confrontation has now reached a crisis point, a critical juncture. Now, too, we want to stand firm and prevent an all-out war.
Q: Can you state with certainty today that, should it happen that Philip Habib's mission fails, there is no choice but war?
A: I could not say that. We will always prefer a political solution over any other solution. None of us wants a war. We will do everything to avoid a war. And the government of Israel is doing everything, but under the conditions that there is no threat to Israel's security.
Q: And even today, after the mediation attempts by Philip Habib, which apparently until now have not succeeded, do you still have hope in a political solution?
A: I want to hope. One must never give up. This does not have to be a war. One may talk about military operations and it does not have to be war.
Q: Does this depend on the other side?
A: Yes. But this measure must be taken only when there is no, absolutely no, alternative. But one must be prepared for it.
Q: Mr. Shamir, the government's position on this issue did indeed win a majority of 51:39, but there is no consensus on this. That is the impression. Does not this situation limit the government in its actions, its freedom to manoeuver?
A: First of all, I'd say this: There exists a consensus of opinion on the heart of the matter, because if the main issue in the confrontation between Israel and Syria is the missile question - there is general agreement on that. That is what the leader of the opposition has said. The diplomatic process for removing the missiles must be found. If this does not succeed, other steps must be taken. That is in fact the government's, position, and on that position there is a consensus. All the rest is just so much dust rising from interparty struggles, infighting and attempts to use this crisis to defame and hit out at the government.
Q: Is only the opposition exploiting the situation this way?
A: Of course. Who else? Look, we are presently involved in a confrontation with a cruel, obstinate enemy, extreme in his hatred of Israel and his declared intention to destroy Israel, and we must bring to this confrontation aggressiveness, sangfroid, wisdom and a maximum of national unity.
Q: Which, I believe, does not exist...
A: It is a vital necessity. In a democracy like Israel, there may be differences of opinion also at times of international crises, the eve of war, during or after wars. That's how it's always been. But there is an unwritten law: In a confrontation with a hostile country, the entire nation stands behind the government (at such times), we keep differences of opinion, if any, to ourselves. This is how we acted in all the wars we fought. I'll give you an example: In 1948, in the War of Independence - were there no differences of opinion? Even within the government there were those who opposed the establishment of a state, and were aware that such a declaration would cause a general Arab invasion. But there were no public debates, no demonstrations - the decision of the majority was binding. Imagine what would have happened had we entered into a public debate at the time, gone into the streets to demonstrate. how would we have looked then, in 1948, in those crucial days? And during the Sinai Campaign - could there have been no differences of opinion? Even today, that war is still a matter for debate. And thus all along the way, in all the wars. Therefore this is a law which must be observed. When it comes to confrontation with an enemy, all must rally round the government. Differences of opinion must not be aired in public. Various views, suggestions, ideas - in an atmosphere of unity the government can be approached, can be influenced. That is possible. Israel is a very democratic state. It is easy to approach a minister, the cabinet, the Prime Minister and to suggest, to propose. Why is this not how we act right now? The Syrian enemy is listening to this controversy and is encouraged by it. This hardens his stances and increases the threat of war. I appeal to all of us - stop this dissension, let us unite. Any differences of opinion can be discussed among ourselves.