Speaking at the annual luncheon attended by the Foreign Press Association in Israel, Mr. Begin expressed the hope that the autonomy talks would be renewed, reviewed the state of Israel-Egypt relations, the role of the U.S. in the Middle East and attacked the European opposition to the Camp David process. Text:
Q: The Reagan administration has said it has other items of higher priority than renewing soon substantive talks on the autonomy question - probably not until after the June 30 elections. I believe you've said several times in the past: momentum is a very important part of these negotiations. What effect do you think this delay will have on the peace negotiations?
A: The statement you mentioned wasn't made by the President, but by the Secretary of State. So I cannot warrant that this is the official stand of the government of the United States. This I will know when I have reports from my friend and colleague the Foreign Minister. But we always contend - since the talks about the autonomy for the Palestinian Arabs in the Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district were interrupted not by us - they should be renewed. And we suggested this several times. Then, of course, as you know, the United States is a participant in those talks; and the United States, if it is willing, then should take an initiative to bring both sides together. Admittedly, Egypt and Israel on this have differences of opinion. However, if you don't negotiate, you can never reach an agreement. I would like to stress: this is our point of view. We cannot impose on anybody our proposals. We can only make them. We are prepared to renew the autonomy negotiations. For that we need a partner - Egypt, and also the United States - either its good offices or its agreement to participate.
Q: Do you think that the delay will have a negative effect on resuming the substantive talks?
A: Well, any delay is undesirable. I didn't say that we must impose ourselves on anybody. If our partners say that they would like to have a delay, then there will be a delay.
Q: Mr. Begin, in what specific fields could Middle East peace be promoted if meetings could be arranged between yourself and President Reagan?
A: You ask me about the possibility of meeting President Reagan. If President Reagan invites me to come to see him, I will gladly accept his invitation. The question of timing is also up to the President, not to me. And there are no official decisions yet taken. We will know about it and then, if invited, I will go.
Q: Would you care to specify the topics which might come up?
A: I cannot unilaterally specify the subjects which will come up. The autonomy talks, the multi-national force in Sinai, bilateral problems, etc. But I do not now suggest any agenda. It depends on the President.
Q: In the past you have been quite critical of Europe's Middle East initiative, of efforts of Europe to become more active in the Middle East. Under what conditions do you think Europe might be able to play a more active role in the Middle East - or do you prefer that Europe keep its hands off the Arab-Israeli conflict altogether?
A: The European initiative is detrimental to the Camp David peace process. We have never had any doubts about that, especially after the Venice conference, which took place several weeks after the Damascus meeting of the Fatah, which is the main component of the so-called P.L.O. At that meeting, in Damascus, a decision was taken that the Zionist entity - they cannot spell the word Israel, they call us the Zionist entity - should be - I quote - "liquidated, ideologically, militarily, and politically". Let us leave ideology on the side, but military means the physical destruction of our people. If we cannot defend ourselves, then our people are lost, surrounded by enemies in the Middle East; and politically it means the destruction of our state. Several weeks later, the nine - now there are ten - met in Venice and suggested that Israel should include the P.L.O. as a partner to the negotiations. That is absolutely detrimental to the peace process, because we can never negotiate with the P.L.O. Where is the nation which would negotiate with any organization bent on its destruction? And they are so bent. They say so often. They repeat it in their so-called Charter. And whenever they convene, they take again those very extreme resolutions against the existence of the State of Israel. And (according to) Camp David, they are not partners at all and we didn't invite them in; and neither the Americans, nor the Egyptians, nor the Israelis invited them to come. Therefore, it is first of all a contradiction to the Camp David agreement and then, per se, detrimental to the peace process... War is killing men, women and children, and they cannot be a party to negotiations with the State of Israel. They never will.
Q: The Dutch chairman of the European Council of Ministers is going within a short time to visit Israel. Under which conditions might Europe be able to play a more constructive role, in your opinion, in the Middle East?
A: If they support the Camp David agreement, the peace treaty (with) Egypt, that would be a very positive development. But they don't.
Q: A year ago, Israel was supposed to have elections in the West Bank or Judea and Samaria, for the inhabitants, as they had four years before. That election was postponed because of the possibility that agreement on autonomy might be reached by the target date. Now that year has passed. Will Israel propose holding elections in the West Bank this year?
A: Not before we reach a full agreement on this issue between Israel, Egypt and the United States. This is written in Camp David. There should be an agreement, and the transitional period of five years starts with the election - the establishment and inauguration of the Self-Governing Authority or the Administrative Council. So first we must reach an agreement. Then there will be an election. A proposal to have one-sidedly taken that decision is not practical.
Q: Does that mean that if there is no agreement on autonomy in the next two or three years, there will be no elections in the West Bank?
A: That means that we should negotiate an agreement executing the Camp David agreement. We stand for it, and so we should continue.
Q: The peace treaty between Israel and Egypt foresaw a multi-national force to take up a position in the Sinai after Israel withdraws. If such a force is not set up, will Israel in fact hold up its withdrawal?
A: My definition is as follows: In the peace treaty itself, the United Nations force is mentioned, which will be established and deployed in two zones: in the north and in the south of Sinai. However, both President Sadat and I received the same letter from President Carter, in which the president, on behalf of the United States undertakes, in case such a United Nations force is not established, to form an alternative and acceptable multi-national force. It became clear under the previous American administration that a U.N. force is not a reality, because the Russians told the Americans that the establishment of a United Nations force (requires) the decision of the Security Council, they, the Russians, will use their right to veto it. So, that is now impossible. Then comes the commitment undertaken by the president on behalf of the United States, to undertake all necessary measures to form that multinational force. This commitment is an integral part of the peace treaty and it should be carried out, of course, before we withdraw to the international border.
Q: Can we understand from your answer that should the commitment not be carried out, that the final withdrawal will also not be carried out?
A: My dear friend, everybody has got his style and he uses it. I said that this commitment is an integral part of the peace treaty and I don't wish to add any comments.
Q: Quite recently in the American media, there was once more reports of a flash of light seen off the coast of South Africa. The American newspapers report it to be another atomic explosion. Could we take this opportunity to ask you just what is the situation with Israel vis-a-vis its nuclear preparedness?
A: No, it is absolutely untrue. We have nothing in common with it.
Q: May I ask whether or not you would comment on Israel's preparedness, irrespective of the flash of light?
A: I'm a lawyer. I don't know anything about nuclear weapons. Israel will not be the first in the Middle East to introduce nuclear weapons. We have stated it, and we shall stand by it.
Q: Would you care to comment on President Brezhnev's call yesterday for an international summit conference on the Middle East, and also his statement that any future peace programme should uphold the principle of Israel's security? I'm referring to his speech at the Soviet party congress.
A: Mr. Brezhnev made the appeal for a summit conference between the United States and the Soviet Union. I heard that in the United States there are different reactions. Anyhow, such summit conferences (have taken) place, sometimes they brought good results as far as so-called detente is concerned, sometimes they didn't bring any results - like that during the period of Mr. Khruschev, in Paris. So it depends on the results and, of course, the preparations. Mr. Brezhnev did not speak about assuring the security of Israel. He said that all states in the Middle East, including Israel, should have an assured existence. But he asked us to go back to the lines of 4 June 1967 - 8 miles from the seashore - with all the new weapons given by the Soviet Union also to the P.L.O., including missiles. In such a situation, we would face our implacable enemy from the mountains, in Tel Aviv and Jaffa and in Rehovot - in all our townships. So where is our security? That is a contradiction in terms. And therefore we have to state that this is no pledge whatsoever for Israel's security, especially when the Soviet Union continues all the time to both train the men of the P.L.O. - we have proof of it - and gives them weapons - Katyusha missiles, tanks, guns, ammunition, sub-machine guns, with which to kill Israelis. This is the antithesis of security.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, it's almost exactly a year now since the establishment in Cairo of the Israeli Embassy and the establishment here in Israel of the Egyptian Embassy. Would you use the opportunity of this near-anniversary to respond to the question, what are the areas of bilateral relations between Egypt and Israel about which you are most pleased, and what are the areas about which you are most disappointed? I'm not speaking so much of the autonomy as the bilateral relations as such.
A: Well, there is normalization in the wake of the peace treaty. Ambassadors, resident ambassadors, both in Egypt and in Israel - and they serve the countries well. We have co-operation in several fields. We will sign, probably soon, a cultural agreement. However, there are areas in which the normalization does not satisfy us. With full candor, I will give this example - I cannot go into details. Many more Israelis visited Egypt than Egyptians visited Israel. There is a certain asymmetry in this field and this is one disappointment. There should be reciprocity, the silent agreement of tourism and this is not satisfactory.
Q: Mr. Begin, there are reports that Israel might agree to a proposal, an American proposal, where Israel will receive more arms, in turn (for) not vocalising opposition to an increase of American sales to Saudi Arabia. What do you have to say about this?
A: No, we voiced all the objections to giving such offensive equipment to the Saudis. In Taif, there was a conference in which they proclaimed Jihad - holy war - to liberate Jerusalem. Jerusalem doesn't need their liberation; it is already liberated. It's free and there is free access for all religions to come to their holy shrines and pray. But this is. a fact: Jihad is a holy war and the Saudis, while being considered by some as a moderate state, are the most extremist, implacable enemies of Israel. And therefore, we raised our objections to giving them offensive weapons.
Q: Do you feel that an increase in American sale of weapons to the Saudis will seriously hamper the balance of power in the region?
A: You know as far as supply of weapons to Arab countries is concerned, it is a kind of avalanche, both through the east and through the west. May I give you the following figures: in Syria, there are now over 2,600 Soviet tanks, amongst them some of the best T-72s; planes, some of the best, MIG-25s. There are more than 2,050 tanks in Iraq. There is a deal between Britain and Jordan to sell a supply of Chieftain tanks; also there are American tanks supplied. And then, Libya is a Soviet arsenal. They have sophisticated weapons, supplied mainly by the Soviet Union, which they can't even man, because they lack the manpower. Both from the West and the East there is a permanent flow; from the east, meaning the Soviet Union and its satellites. From the west, Britain and France, the United States, to a certain extent, Italy. It's an avalanche. Of course we are perturbed by it, and we shall make it clear that the balance of power may be very weakened as far as Israel is concerned. We do hope that if this should occur, then there will be a change, because Israel needs such a balance of power. We have a peace treaty achieved with Egypt, but the northern-eastern front is open and behind that front are enemies who still keep a state of war with Israel.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, from the various statements that were made by Secretary of State Haig, among others, in the new American administration under President Reagan, I get the impression that the Middle East may not be at the top of the agenda these days, that places like El Salvador or Poland or American-Soviet relations may have priority in the eyes of the Reagan administration over the issues of conflict in the Middle East. I wondered if you get that impression as well?
A: I suppose I answered, to a certain extent at least, that question earlier, when I said we made our proposals. I think the Middle East is one of the most strategic regions in the world: it is in turmoil. Let us state that there is going on a protracted war between Iraq and Iran. There is great tension between Jordan and Syria. I mentioned already Libya. This region is in permanent turmoil, and I think it should be of great concern to the free world that it shouldn't be taken by surprise. But of course we can only express our opinion. If anybody wants to wait, somebody decides that he's got some time to try to solve the problem, the special problem between Israel and the Arabs, what can we do about it? We shall survive, we shall live. We shall prepare ourselves to defend our country and people out of necessity. We shall do our best to serve our people - as we do.
Q: The interpretation given to Secretary Haig's reply to a question put to him by Israel's television correspondent in Washington, Dan Raviv, is that Mr. Haig may be about to undertake a journey to the Middle East, perhaps to Israel as well. I was wondering if you have any concrete evidence that we can expect an early visit to the region, and especially to Israel by Secretary of State Alexander Haig?
A: Yes, I suppose one can say there is a possibility that the Secretary of State, Mr. Haig, will visit our region. I hope that he will visit Israel, Egypt and other countries. But I cannot speak on behalf of the Secretary of State of the government of the United States. If this visit takes place, it will take place in the spring, as far as I know. But, of course, I cannot vouch for it. Again, it's up to the United States government to decide about a visit of the Secretary of State to any part of the world.
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, may I refer, with your permission, to the current debate in the Federal Republic of Germany about the possible supply of tanks to Saudi Arabia. You have made some very eloquent comments on this possibility. However, East Germany actively supports Israel's enemies as a matter of national policy - yet I have never heard you condemn that country. Could you explain that omission?
A: I cannot accept your premise. East Germany is a communist country, completely subservient to Moscow. It fills the orders of Moscow. And they are in many parts of the world, together with the Cubans sometimes, units of other nations, etc. But we always condemned their attitude. As far as the proposal that West Germany should supply Saudi Arabia with Leopard tanks and perhaps also Tornado planes and in great numbers, they speak about thousands. It's not only dangerous to Israel. Of course it is dangerous. But also the weapons supplied by the west can be dangerous to us. I say so sincerely and without any qualifications, these are lethal weapons but we are a small country. However, that Germany, in our generation, should supply our enemies, and as I said, one of the most implacable enemies we have with such lethal weapons as the Leopard tank, an offensive weapon, one of the best tanks in the world, is most repulsive morally, and that's why I understand why in Germany itself there is great opposition to this very unfortunate, horrifying proposal. It would be horrifying for any German. Well, I don't have to go into details; everybody knows what happened in our generation to the Jewish people, what was done by Germans under the National Socialist regime. What has happened before our eyes. The day that the Germans should supply jets, tanks - Leopards - to Saudi Arabia, with the call of Jihad, is most repulsive.
Q: There are reports that tension is building up in Lebanon again between the Phalangist militias and the P.L.O. I wanted to ask you what would be Israel's position if there flares up an open confrontation between these two groups in Lebanon?
A: That is a hypothetical question. I only want to say and to state that since the P.L.O. got arms and the Syrian army occupied part of Lebanon, we extended help to the Christian minority. As an Israeli citizen, I'm very proud of this fact. It concerns both our predecessors and the government today. We did it because we couldn't tolerate the possibility of another genocide of a minority - this time a Christian minority - in the Middle East. We have experience with genocide, and therefore we help them to defend themselves. And of course if there is a danger to them, we will not stand by idly. No man of good will should do so, and I would appeal to the Christian world, all over, to remember that there is here a Christian minority in permanent danger for its very existence. And women and men of good will should not only remember it, but also do something about it, to make sure that this Christian minority has the same right to exist as the Moslem majority - as anybody. And therefore we help the Christians with the same full conviction in Lebanon.
Q: Would you help the Phalangists in the same way as you do now with Major Haddad in the south?
A: The Christian minority is a minority; we help them as far as we can, We did it in the past, if necessary; if they are again in danger or attacked by the P.L.O., as they were time and again, we shall do our duty.
Q: There're a report in the local press this morning that in the budget that's being presented, there's provision for funding for nine, and the quote in the paper was "new settlements", in the territories of the West Bank, Judea and Samaria. And two in the Gaza Strip. Could you comment on that please?
A: No, I suppose the government declared already several months ago that we have a plan of building several settlements. This is the same plan repeated time and again by the press. We didn't change. This is the program of the government and we,, carry it out. And of course there are certain villages which should be strengthened.
I would like to say something on this issue again, because some negative comments were made even after the declaration by President Reagan to the effect that the building of Israeli villages in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District - President Reagan used the expression "West Bank", but with all due respect, it is historically Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District - as he used the double negative, the result is positive - they are legal, they all believed it - they are legal, legitimate - and also an integral part of our national security. Everybody can see with his mind's eye the map, the mountains and the valley so close to the sea, and can understand what danger we'll be in if there were no Jewish villages in the mountains of Samaria and in Judea. But the governmental plan was announced many months ago and it stands. And therefore, no new decisions were taken, only the press, as I already said, repeats time and again the same story.
Q: Are you then saying that the eleven settlements that are mentioned in this report - the report said eleven, nine in Judea and Samaria, two in the Gaza Strip - are merely strengthening the original ten, of the ten which were laid down in May by the government. These are not new settlements, is that what you're telling us?
A: I repeat what I said with complete candor. There was an announcement of government policy by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, by myself, on behalf of the government about ten settlements. We didn't take any other decision.