The interview, excerpts of which follow, revolved on the sale of U.S. military equipment to Saudi Arabia, which Israel viewed as a serious threat to its security. Under discussion was the supply of aerial refuelling equipment which would enhance the Saudi airforce capacity, range and combat endurance. Mr. Shamir also discussed Israeli-Egyptian relations and the autonomy talks. Excerpts:
Q: What is the significance of the opposition that Israel has expressed to the sale of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia, after the United States government has decided to sell the material?
A: Israel's government has always opposed this transaction and this position is known to the government of the U.S. During my visit to Washington, we expressed this opposition as plainly and as vigorously as possible.
Q: Why did the cabinet feel a need, to reiterate its opposition to the sale of equipment to Saudi Arabia?
A: There had never before been an official resolution in the form of a cabinet meeting resolution.
Q: Didn't the cabinet consider that the U.S. must effect a rapprochement with Saudi Arabia for reasons of its own?
A: The U.S. knows its interests. We must worry about our interests.
Q: This opposition is not practical...
A: I don't know what other opposition there can be. We expressed our opposition. When I was in Washington, I explained all our reasons, and we have very weighty ones, not only from our point of view, but also from the broader perspective of American interests. We explained again and again that in our opinion this shipment was superfluous, harmful and dangerous to peace in the region and to Israel's security. The U.S. government apparently did not agree with us.
Q: Does the cabinet's resolution imply that Israel will not mount a diplomatic offensive on this issue?
A: This resolution implies nothing about an offensive. A government does not decide on such a thing. A government expresses its opinion and explains its position to the U.S. government. We do not interfere in internal wars within the U.S. I explained our stand to our friends in the Senate and the Congress.
Q: Would you advise our friends to sit quietly and not respond to the arms deal?
A: I will not give our friends any advice. They know what to do. It is not our job to interfere in U.S. domestic policy. We have explained our position to our friends, and they must act as their consciences dictate.
Q: In '78, when the three-way aircraft deal was being discussed, Israel expressed vigorous opposition and activated what is called the "Jewish lobby". Why didn't Israel choose this path this time?
A: ... It is obvious that there doesn't have to be an exact replay of every campaign. We deemed it proper this time to express our opposition to the Administration, the Congress, the media and to our American friends.
I Q: Senator Moynihan said in an interview that he thinks there is a silent agreement between the U.S. and Israel to exercise restraint concerning this transaction...
A: Senator Moynihan is a very good friend of Israel's, and if he indeed made these remarks, it proves that even friends can occasionally be mistaken: There is no silent agreement.
Q: Did the government of Israel do everything in its power to prevent the deal?
A: Everything in its power - that is a very sweeping concept. The Secretary of State told the President of the United States, in my presence, that the Government of Israel opposes the arms deal.
Q: Did Israel demand concessions, political recompense in exchange for the Saudi Arabian-American deal, in addition to the military recompensation?
A: We are not speaking of compensation or recompense. We oppose this arms deal, and claim that if it indeed goes through, the danger to our security will increase and then we have the right to approach the U.S. and to present additional requests in order to reinforce our security... During the course of the talk we did not enter any discussion whatsoever on the matter of compensation, since I was adamant in my position that the transaction is harmful and damaging.
Q: What could be considered suitable compensation in the present situation?
A: I should like to reiterate that we can not speak of compensation at this the General Staff will evaluate the damage that has been caused to Israel's security and what the United States can do to contain this damage.
Q: What did you accomplish during your trip to the U.S.?
A: ... You don't have to accomplish something during every visit... These days personal meetings between foreign ministers is an everyday occurrence. Today political and diplomatic activity is conducted by means of personal meetings. This was the first meeting at the governmental level with the new American administration: We had to present our positions and requests, we had to hear their points of view, we had to reach some sort of dialogue on matters of mutual concern to us and them and we have many such shared interests. I think that, to a great extent, these goals that I mentioned were accomplished.
Q: ... What is the meaning of the concept that Israel is a strategic asset for the U.S.?
A: I did not use the concept strategic asset. I said that the U.S. considers Israel a very important factor from the perspective of western interests... In the global confrontation between the Western and Soviet blocs, there are forces and elements who help one of the two blocs. The U.S. considers Israel, and its military might and technological strength, an important factor which represents an obstacle to Soviet expansionism in the Middle East... There is mutuality between our national interests and those of the West. This obligates the West and the U.S. to help us. Still in all, Israel must, first and foremost, rely on itself... Israel is not a strategic asset of the U. S.'s... It is considered an ally of the U.S.... In all our contacts and dialogues with the U.S., we say that, first of all, the State of Israel must be strong, to rely on its own military and economic strength, and not to depend on the U.S.'s help. The U.S. must help Israel ... stand on its own. The present U.S. administration understands this very well...
Q: ... Does Israel not see the establishment of a multi-national force in Sinai, with the participation of American troops, the start of a U.S. presence in the Middle East?
A: Israel, of course, does not object to a U.S. military presence in the Middle East, given the present circumstances ... As far as the Sinai is concerned, since Israel will be withdrawing from the Sinai, it is important that there be a significant, friendly military force there on whom we can rely to fulfil its role in such a way that the Sinai will never again be the staging point for an attack against the State of Israel.
Q: ... Have we asked the U.S. to work on the Egyptians so that they can use the airfields that we are evacuating in the Sinai?
A: We have yet to go into details. We spoke in principle. From that point of view, it appears to me that there are no differences of opinion between us and the U.S. negotiations have begun, and they will continue. It remains for us simply to insist on our interests.
Q: Will Israel officially request the U.S. to establish an American military base in Israel's territory?
A: No. Israel is not interested in such proposals, and will not propose to the U.S. bases on our territory. If the U.S. comes to us, we will discuss it.
Q: ... What is your position regarding the bill that was presented in the Knesset today, to impose Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights?
A: I do not think it was good or desirable to bring this bill to the Knesset today, because there exists a broad national consensus in favor of retaining and settling the Golan Heights. This bill at this time comes to crumble the national consensus: It comes to show the outside world that there are differences of opinion here, and that contradicts reality.
Q: ... What is your position regarding the transfer of the Prime Minister's office to East Jerusalem?
A: I never considered this important. For me, there is one Jerusalem, and it is not at all important exactly where the Prime Minister's office is located.
Q: ... Have you found that there is more understanding in Europe today for Israel's problems?
A: ... Europe is an important continent, an important factor in the world, and an important factor for us. We must cultivate our' relations with the nations of Europe, we must talk, argue and deliberate. And we are doing this. To my great chagrin, I can not say there has been any improvement recently in our relations with Europe but this obligates us even more to deal with Europe.
Q: ... Even European nations that are friendly to Israel, like Holland, Denmark (and) West Germany, are not displaying understanding for Israel's positions...
A: One must take into account that they are acting in the framework of the European Community and in that framework there are compromises between the various positions of diverse nations. Everyone concedes something. But I wouldn't say that the countries you indicated have ceased to be our friends.
Q: ... The subject of the autonomy talks is not at the top of the U.S.'s list of priorities. Why can't they be conducted directly with Egypt, without the need for an American initiative?
A: ... The situation that has been created since Camp David necessitates the constant, existence of the Egyptian-Israel-U.S. triangle. The U.S. must be a full partner and involved in the entire process. Therefore, we do not think there is a serious possibility of advancing the whole process without the U.S.'s participation. I know that this is Egypt's belief as well.
Q: ... How have we reached the situation whereby we cannot maintain contacts with a nation with whom we have a peace treaty, and we need the mediation of the U.S.?
A: ... We have daily contacts with the Egyptians... For example, on the subject of normalization, there is constant contact, and constant overcoming of difficulties... In a few days, a commercial fair will open in Cairo - with Israel's participation... On the matter of autonomy, we and Egypt are of the opinion that the U.S. must participate not merely mediation, but full U.S. participation in the talks...