The focus of this interview was the attainment of the cease fire, the American role in the negotiations and to what extent was there a P. L. 0. involvement in the talks. Mr. Shamir denied any P.L.O. involvement, stated that the cease-fire agreement was made between Ambassador Habib, acting for the U.S. and the government of Israel. He expressed hope that the cease-fire would hold in spite of previous negative experience. Excerpts:
Q: The Government claims repeatedly that the P.L.O. is not a party to this ceasefire agreement. Still, it is known that neither the U.S. nor Lebanon are the ones who opened fire on Israel, and it is also known that the Lebanese government is not, in fact, capable of forcing the P.L.O. to do anything. The question is, is it not correct to say that the cease-fire agreement is, in effect, between Israel and the P.L.O.?
A: Actually, this morning's agreement to end the hostile actions on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese border was made between the representative of the United States, Mr. Philip Habib, and the Government of Israel. This agreement is a result of, or an additional step after the Cabinet's decision of Tuesday, when the cabinet resolved to authorize the U.S. President's envoy to try to reach an agreement to end the hostile actions. He came today and brought this proposal. The Government of Israel accepted it. In the same decision, the Government obligated Philip Habib not to enter into any contact - direct or indirect - with the P.L.O.
Q: But it is the P.L.O. that opened fire, and it is the P.L.O. that must cease firing.
A: He informed us that he acted accordingly. It is important for us that the hostilities be ended.
Q: Isn't this hiding behind semantics? After all, it is known to us and to the Americans that without the P.L.O.'s agreement, it is impossible to bring about a cease-fire, (and) especially since there have been indirect negotiations with the P.L.O. in. the past (concerning) (unintelligible - ed.) our P.O.W.'s during the Litani campaign?
A: It should be pointed out that while I don't rely on the accounts of the terrorist leaders, nevertheless, they have declared ... that they also are not conducting any negotiations with Philip Habib. They will only speak with the U.N.
Q: If this is so, is it possible to rely on this cease-fire, and not to fear, as the G.O.C. Northern Command said today, that this is, in fact, an intermission, a pause, after which there will be a resumption of fire?
A: Well, past experience teaches us that cease-fires of this type must be regarded with a certain amount of doubt. But in spite of this, we want to hope that this cease-fire will hold, because it is in itself a positive event and, I would say, an accomplishment.
Q: Was there not a capitulation here to American pressure?
A: There was no capitulation here whatsoever, and I would like to explain why it is an achievement for Israel, taking into account the fact that after the I.D.F.'s recent actions... against the terrorists, all the terrorist organization's penetration of Israel in fact ceased, on the one hand (and) on the other hand, the success of terrorist actions within Israel has dropped to nil; therefore they have but one way left to attack Israel - by shelling and launching rockets from Lebanese territory. If the agreement reached this morning ends this, then this is a very noteworthy achievement for the State of Israel.
Q: In retrospect, do you not think that the policy Israel adopted, bombing Beirut as we did, resulted, in the final analysis, in a net loss from the political diplomatic standpoint?
A: We did not bomb Beirut, we bombed the headquarters ... of the terrorist organizations, which are situated in Beirut's Palestinians neighborhood.
Q: But we hurt civilians?
A: You must take one regrettable fact into consideration: That in all wars civilians are hurt. Israel is unique ... in that in conducting its war for survival, under the most difficult conditions, it refrains from hurting civilians. We indeed refrained from this even in this cruel war against the terrorist organizations. But, after they massively attacked Israeli population centers, we warned that this time we would not refrain from attacking terrorist bases and headquarters, even if they seek sanctuary amidst concentrations of (civilian) population. And you must also realize that the same people who live in the buildings that house their headquarters are people connected in one way or another with the Palestinian organizations' activities.
Q: The women, the children, the elderly...
A: I am sorry about every person that was killed, especially if he has no direct contact with the organization of assassins. But this fact must be understood, these people know where they live, they know the danger to which they are subject, as a result of their living (there), and their aiding the people conducting a cruel, murderous, bloody war against the State of Israel.
Q: When the Cabinet ... took the decision to bomb Beirut, did it take into consideration all the difficult consequences that resulted, such as the adverse reaction of the (U.S.) Administration, (and) Congress, of U.S. public opinion...
A: I (must) correct you once again: We did not bomb Beirut. We bombed terrorists' headquarters located in a certain neighborhood in Beirut. And, of course, there are occasionally adverse reactions to every action we take, or have taken in the past, on the part of elements who do not feel what we do, who are not in the same situation as we are...when all is said and done, for the U.S. and other nations, this is but one detail in the general international landscape. For this, it is a war for survival.
Q: ... Mr. Habib said ... that he was going to try for a cease-fire as a first stage towards achieving peace with Lebanon. Do you really believe that peace with Lebanon in the near future is realistic?
A: We would like very much to hope to achieve peace with Lebanon, since we are certain that the great majority of the Lebanese people want this peace, and this will help and be beneficial to both us and them.
Q: And you believe that we can achieve peace with Lebanon?
A: One must hope and strive.
Q: Was it not possible to reach the agreement that was reached today a week or ten days ago, thus preventing so much suffering of residents of the north?
A: We accepted this proposal several days ago. We had to deliberate on it, we had to determine the conditions. We postponed nothing, we took counsel with one another, we made our suggestions to Philip Habib ... Habib went to Beirut, to Riyadh, he came back with the answer - and the moment he had a proposal, we gave our answer. I don't think that we procrastinated, that we delayed unnecessarily - I don't think that during this time we did nothing.
Q: Do you think that now we will get the F-16's soon?
A: I hope so, since this is a most unusual and extraordinary step, an unprecedented one. I don't think that an American administration ever delayed the delivery of planes already bought and paid for by Israel, and I have every reason to assume that this suspension will be cancelled.
Q: ... Do you not think that Israeli policy is sometimes a U.S. hostage, and that Israel has to yield to U.S. pressure because it is so dependent on it
A: This depends to a great extent on Israel, on Israel's steadfastness and Israel's understanding of the network of relations between Israel and the U.S. There is an alliance between Israel and the U.S., (and) I would say, the most profound friendship based on two things: Both on a moral commitment, on shared values, and on a basic mutuality of interests. And I am confident of the basic, essential components of our relations: They are what will determine, in the long run, the essence of relations between us - and all the disagreements and misunderstandings that we have been witnessing recently, are an ephemeral phenomenon that will pass.
Q: We saw the repercussions that the I.D.F. actions in Lebanon had in the American media. Do you not think there might have been ... negligence on the part of Israel's explanation campaign in the U.S., when most of the media emphasized the suffering of the terrorists, of the Lebanese - while almost ignoring the suffering of Israel's northern settlements?
A: Everything that we saw took place in the space of just a few days, 3 or 4 days. Our information network is one of constant contact with many elements: With the Administration, with the media, with Congress - it is not an emergency network, it operates constantly...
Q: Perhaps there should be an emergency system...
A: I don't think so. These days we are reinforcing our network, and I am certain that this activity will be felt in the coming days, and we will see changes in the very near future.
Q: Was the Cabinet decision to endorse the cease-fire agreement unanimous?
A: This is unimportant. This is a governmental decision, and it binds the entire Cabinet.