The questions revolved on the nature of Israel-Egypt relations in the wake of Sadat assassination. Mr. Begin felt that there would be no change in the policy of President Mubarak, and the peace process would continue. A major part of the interview was devoted to an examination of Israeli-French relations and the nature of the ties between Mr. Begin and President Mitterand. Mr. Begin explained his attitude to France and to its President, especially after Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear facility built by French companies. Text:
Q: Following the death of President Sadat, do you think that your peace policy is still viable - or might not the defense of what you consider Israel's vital interests perhaps lead to a type of isolation which turned out fatal for Sadat?
A: Of course, I am deeply saddened by the horrible assassination of President Sadat. I lost in President Sadat not only a partner to the peace process but also a dear personal friend. Our friendship was deepened by our meetings -which were 12 - and the last - in Alexandria, several weeks before he was murdered - was the best of all of them. However, we used to say to each other, President Sadat and 1, we are mortals, tomorrow we may disappear. Perhaps we did not think about assasination of anybody, but about a decision of a nation, a nation can perhaps elect another man, or something which is caused by nature. And we said to each other, we may disappear, but our nations are eternal, so we now are following the path of peace, we signed a peace treaty between our countries, not for ourselves, but for our nations, and therefore the peace treaty will survive us, no doubt, and the peace treaty is for generations to come. In fact, as he used to say: Never again another war as we said to each other lately, President Mubarak and 1, when I visited him during the funeral of President Sadat: Peace forever. So I believe that the road of peace between Egypt and Israel is absolutely viable, and the peace will continue.
Q: Do you feel at all responsible for Sadat's death? Did not such gestures as the bombing of the Iraqi reactor 3 days after meeting with him lead to his isolation in the Arab world, in his country, and especially in his army?
A: My friend, that is the most astonishing assumption I could have ever heard. Who is responsible for the murder of President Sadat? Those who murdered him, and do you know who they are? The so-called Muslim fundamentalists -a group, very small in Egypt, which believes, or believed that Sadat deviated from the path of real Islam, as they believe with Khomeini, together perhaps, because Khomeinism is overflowing both to Egypt and to other Arab countries, Syria, etc. And this is a small group of such fanatic fundamentalists, we don't know, perhaps they lived on a different planet, nobody can understand it. To them the murder of Sadat was a duty, and they believe that they will go to paradise.
Q: But the conspiracies in the army were numerous, and not confined to 5 or 6 soldiers.
A: Well, if the army is so numerous and there was a very small group, it does not mean that the army is responsible. So nobody should accuse anybody except that group which murdered him. But this is a fanatical group, you can not convince them, they were absolutely convinced that Sadat deviated from the proper road of Islam and therefore he should be killed, and they, even if they are executed, I don't know what the result of their trial will be, then they will go to paradise.
Q: Did cooperation exist between the security forces of Egypt and Israel?
A: One day we got information about the possibility of using arms in Egypt. It was not against Sadat, but we transferred that information to the proper Egyptian authorities. It was not connected with President Sadat.
Q: Are you worried about what Egypt's attitude will be to Camp David after Israel completes its withdrawal from Sinai?
A: I believe in the golden rule of international law - pacta sunt servanda: treaties should be carried out. Agreements should be kept. And we kept the agreement and carried it out faithfully, as President Sadat - time and again -declared to his own countrymen in Cairo and Alexandria, either before meeting with me, or even at his own initiative, in his own Parliament. And also so did Egypt. There were some breaches - we drew their attention to that fact, and they must correct them - but in the main, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is being carried out by both sides, and now the question of the future is very simple - observance or vice versa of any international agreement is an absolute mutual duty. If one side carries it out, it obligates the other side to do the same. If one side should commit a breach of it, it entitles the other side to do the same. So for the time being, this question doesn't exist. Both countries want to continue the peace process and, of course, carry out the peace treaty, and all the commitments both parties undertook in the peace treaty.
Q: Do you not fear that after Egypt recovers Sinai, Mubarak may succumb to pressure from the Arab countries and distance himself from you?
A: No, I don't think so. I had a talk with President Mubarak after the assassination of President Sadat, and he made it clear to me that nothing has changed, and there will be peace and normal relations between our two countries. At a certain moment there was a gesture made by both of us: at the very same time, we reached out our hands to each other and both of us, at the same time, simultaneously, said "peace forever".
So I believe it is peace forever.
Q: To what degree do you feel the people of Egypt are devoted to the peace process?
A: The people of Egypt, I would like to tell you, is a good people, hospitable, warmhearted, loves peace, hates war, wants peace with Israel. During 411 my visits to Egypt - Ismailia, Cairo, Alexandria, Aswan, and again the same cities - I was received with great warmth by the Egyptian people, not only by the Egyptian government, by the masses of people who applauded when we used to pass with our car and they saw our flag. The same can say my friend, Dr. Ben-Elissar, who is here, when he served as ambassador of Israel to Egypt - he used to go in his car with the flag of the Embassy in the streets and he used to be applauded by the people of Egypt. The people of Egypt, again, I repeat, are a peaceful, peace-loving and a good people. Of course, there are exceptions, in every nation you find exceptions. But the bulk, the majority of the people have very good qualities.
Q: Do all the people of Israel accept the withdrawal from Sinai?
A: No. There are some members of the Knesset, three, who oppose this sacrifice we made for the sake of peace. Really a great sacrifice, giving back the whole Sinai Peninsula, and they have their followers - but they are three out of a hundred and twenty and only four months ago an election took place. We got the confidence of the people to form a coalition government on the basis of what we told the people, and what we told the people included the peace treaty, including all the commitments of the peace treaty. There is opposition, it is very small, insignificant and can not decide the issue, because the majority of the people, the majority of Parliament, decide on that issue.
Q: Would you meet with the rulers of Arab countries, with King Khaled of Saudi Arabia, for example, or with the Saudi Prince Fahd, if their eight-point peace plan included a clause recognizing Israel?
A: Yes, my friend. When I formed my first government in 1977, in the speech in which I presented that government, I invited President Sadat, King Hussein, President Assad, and all other Arab rulers who would like to accept this proposal, namely either come to Jerusalem and start talks about concluding peace with us, or I am ready to go to your respective capitals, or we may meet on neutral territory as you wish. We are not direct land neighbors with Saudi Arabia, but we are very close to each other through the Eilat Gulf, and I was prepared of course also to see in Jerusalem King Khaled or go to Riyadh and meet him there - why not? But in those days they didn't have the so-called plan they proclaimed a month ago. I said so-called not in order to use a derogatory word, but because it is no plan - as many Arab rulers said, and President Sadat said before his death, it is only a conglomerate, a kind of compilation of certain resolutions of the summit conferences of Arab countries, and sometimes also of certain resolutions of the General Assembly of the U.N. And then there was a dispute whether point seven means recognition of Israel. Israel is not mentioned, but some people were misled and said "But by implication, by interpretation, you can reach the conclusion that Israel is included." I say, though, to that recognition which you must find, or look for by interpretation or by implication, why wasn't Israel clearly mentioned? In the meantime, a very interesting incident happened. One of the officials of the Saudi Embassy in New York said, yes, it means recognition of Israel. I suppose no more than six hours later there already came a denial from Riyadh, an official denial saying that the gentleman spoke on his own behalf, he does not represent in his interpretation the view of Saudi Arabia. Nothing was left of that interpretation. But I do not pay much attention to this specific paragraph because it does not mean anything to us. What do you mean recognition. What does he recognize? Our right to exist? Do we need such recognition? Does anybody speak about recognition of the right of the existence of France? of Belgium? of Luxembourg? of Monaco? Every nation has a right to exist, we don't need such a recognition from anybody. So the main point is the program as such, and he suggests that Israel should withdraw to the lines of 4 June 1967, in other words, eight miles from the seashore. He suggests a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district, and then he suggests that for 3 months the U.N. take over those territories under their own control and then create a Palestinian state. In other words, also negotiations are not mentioned with Israel. Everything is dictated to Israel. All of this means a mortal danger to Israel. The dismemberment of the country and putting their long-range arms on the mountains, against the Mediterranean valley, against two-third of our people, Then they will hold hostage Tel Aviv, Jaffa, Bnei-Brak, Rehovot - all our cities and towns and then there would be permanent bloodshed - or, as I put rightly so, it is a plan how to liquidate Israel in stages. Then I am prepared to see today King Khaled as well, provided he says that that plan to liquidate Israel does not exist, because I'm not going -as a responsible man and the elected Prime Minister of Israel - to see anybody who contemplates the destruction of Israel - and that plan is a plan how to destroy Israel, and not a peace treaty.
Q: A short while ago, the Saudis were calling for a Jihad against Israel. Now they have a peace plan. Given the favorable reaction to and possible approval for the plan by the U.S. and Europe, do you not feel that by rejecting the plan you are moving into an increasingly untenable position?
A: No, no change took place. I remember very well the call for jihad, but now probably they thought out in Riyadh, perhaps the council of somebody, that it is not good tactics to say Jihad, holy war, especially in the West. In the West people don't like to hear about another possibility of destruction of the Jewish people after the Holocaust. They just don't like to hear it. Then they reached a conclusion: Why should we say Jihad? We should make out those 8 points, even put in that 7th paragraph, which will create an impression that we recognize Israel, but in fact our plan is a plan to destroy Israel. That is a tactical move. It is obvious. Every child can understand it, and we, as elected leaders of Israel, are responsible for the future of our children, and we will care for them. With Fahd's plan, without Fahd's plan, it does not matter. This is a plan how to destroy Israel, and the change is only a tactical move.
Q: If in the near future the PLO recognizes Israel, will Israel recognize the PLO?
A: No, gentlemen, we will never sit down with the so-called PLO. I don't mind what they say. I read of course the charter as I read Mein Kampf. To us it is the same. But people in the thirties in all the Western countries used to say "Don't pay attention to what he wrote in Mein Kampf, it is not serious; it is for domestic propaganda", and they made friends with Hitler. Ultimately we know what happened. After Munich, after the Soviet-German Nazi Pact, what happened to our people as well. What happened to France, also remember. Now we know their charter. They want to destroy Israel. Whatever they do after that Mein Kampf of the so-called PLO was published doesn't interest me at all. I take it seriously. They want to destroy my people. Only we will not let them do so. This is no partner at all to any negotiations, to any talks, to any so-called recognition, they are not interested. And what we are interested in is to give peace to our people.
Q: Would you recognize the PLO if they altered their charter to include recognition of Israel?
A: I said that under no circumstances shall we negotiate with the so-called PLO bent on the destruction of Israel.
Q: Do you not fear that the U.S. may eventually recognize the PLO, such as was counseled recently by the former American presidents, Ford and Carter?
A: The former presidents, Mr. Ford and Mr. Carter, spoke about the conditions when to speak to the so-called PLO, namely to recognize Israel's right to exist - a curious expression - and recognize Resolution 242. So, two very important personalities of the United States said so, but may I say, with all due respect, I'm the Prime Minister of Israel, and Israel's policy is being decided in Jerusalem.
Q: You mentioned the immediate reasons for Israel's rejection of the-Saudi peace plan. But might not Israel's rejection stem from a fear of Saudi Arabia's replacing Israel as the foremost ally of the U.S. in the Middle East?
A: I will tell you very clearly, what I think about it. You know that Western Europe once signed a pact called Munich and they let Czechoslovakia disappear from the map. Now I suppose that some politicians in Europe wouldn't mind much if we disappeared, but we mind. And therefore, for instance, whatever Lord Carrington says doesn't at all interest me. He said officially already that he is for a Palestinian state. Look at the map - then you'll see that a Palestinian state is a mortal danger to our country. There will be also a Soviet base in no time, because Arafat lately said that he has got a strategic alliance with the Soviet Union after his visit to Moscow, so he will also invite Soviet weapons and Soviet troops into Judea and Samaria. From Odessa, the flight time is only 2 and a half hours. What happened in other countries taken over by the Soviets? You know as well as I do - Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Ethiopia, etc. So we need now such a Soviet base in the heart of the Middle East? From which they can go northwards, southwards, eastwards? It will be folly. But sometimes Europe has committed follies but not on our account. We are not going to allow it. As far as America is concerned, the American government and the American congress stand clearly by the commitment they gave us five years ago. They do not recognize the so-called PLO. They do not negotiate with the PLO, they put themselves in conditions, the so-called PLO doesn't fulfil them, therefore, the United States is not talking to that murderous Nazi organization (or) Neo-Nazi organization.
Q: Do you not think that the initial favorable reaction of the U.S. to the Fahd plan shows a retreat from Camp David?
A: Well, no, I wouldn't say that it was a sympathetic reaction to the plan as Such. President Reagan and Secretary Haig said there are some points which seemed to them to be a certain advancement. After what happened yesterday, I suppose they will have to reconsider, because yesterday they heard from an official source of Saudi Arabia that the seventh point does not mean the recognition of Israel and they meant mainly the seventh point. Negotiations are not mentioned at all. So I suppose as they are very good friends of Israel. They will draw their conclusions now and reconsider and perhaps make a different statement.
Q: Will you continue to aid the Christians in Lebanon, even at the risk of provoking Syrian intervention in Lebanon?
A: All the time there is Syrian intervention in Lebanon. You must remember that there is a Syrian occupation army in Lebanon. Over 40,000 men armed with the best weapons, tanks, guns, Soviet-supplied. This is a permanent intervention. But then, there was another intervention when they put in the missiles in the Baq'aa, into the valley, and then the Americans promised us that those missiles must be removed - I have this in writing from President Reagan. He sent his emissary, Mr. Philip Habib, a brilliant man, to bring about the restoration of the status quo ante and Mr. Philip Habib came and said restoration of the status quo ante means first of all, removal of the missiles. Until now he didn't remove them. And he didn't come yet. But I got the latest information that he will soon be here, and he asked for some more time. We shall give him some more time because we don't want war. If he removes those missiles by peaceful means - God bless him.
Q: If he does not succeed, will the Israeli air force destroy the missiles?
A: If Mr. Habib does not succeed, then the State of Israel will do what it is obliged to do.
Q: What has changed in the relations between France and Israel since Mitterrand was elected to office? Has there been a change in substance or in form only?
A: I have to go to some extent into history. France and Israel were real friends and allies. When Mr. Ben-Gurion one day visited Paris, President de Gaulle greeted him and said about Israel, "our friend and ally". Ally is a very strong word, because it means mutual help, and there was a time when we fought together for our common interests. As far as I am concerned I would like to tell the French people that since my boyhood I loved France with all my heart and soul ... The time when we had friendship and alliance was a time of great happiness for many in Israel, including myself. Then came the change. And may I say that the worst period was that under the presidency of Giscard DEstaing. France helped the Iraqis to build an atomic reactor knowing - I can say so - that it may one day produce their atomic bombs. We had to destroy that reactor in order to save our children. And I thank God everyday that we succeeded in doing so. And so should all people who love justice and freedom in France itself. I regret very much that one French specialist was killed. I regret it very deeply. We did it on a Sunday so that all the French specialists, as we assumed, would be outside the reactor. But one of them was there. And we are prepared to pay indemnities to the family. Again, we are very sorry. But we didn't know he was there. Now again I say that the worst period was under Monsieur Giscard D'Estaing. With the election of Monsieur Mitterrand, I believe there will be a change. Because I know Monsieur Mitterrand since 1955. For many years. And we met many times. He spoke to me French. I used to speak to him English. I understood his language. He understood my language. We understood each other, which is most important. We are also personal friends. I know that he is a real friend of Israel. Not that I say we have identical views - no one can be expected to have identical views with another state. And maybe we have differences of opinion. But I believe he is a great friend of Israel. He has a deep sentiment for our country, perhaps since the days of the Second World war, he never changed his mind, and I believe he will cause a change in the relations between France and Israel. We have wanted a change for a long time. But we couldn't do anything. On the other side there was an unwillingness to change our relations for the better. Now there will be willingness.
But what I said about Monsieur Mitterrand ... I cannot say about M. Cheysson, your Foreign Minister ... I don't think he's a friend of Israel. And when he visited several Arab countries, I suppose Saudi Arabia or Syria, he made some curious statements. I'm really expecting him eagerly to come to visit our country. I want to ask him how would you explain that you compared Arafat to Charles de Gaulle. What a comparison. How you could have compared the so-called PLO to the French resistance? I believe it's an insult to thousands of members of the French resistance. How could you do so, I would like to ask him. I don't know what he is going to say to me. But I am very curious about his reply. And all his statements about a Palestinian state, etc. All of them were very unfriendly to Israel. So. But still, if he comes as a guest, we are a hospitable people, since the days of old Abraham, and we shall receive him hospitably - but I must say, I will have to ask him several questions. Just for the sake of curiosity - I would like to hear his intellectual explanation so we know ... what his logic is in the two comparisons.
Q: And are you expecting him to visit Israel in the near future?
A: He may come. Yes, in December ... I will expect him and give him full hospitality.
Q: During the first part of this interview, you appeared to conform to the image of intransigence you give yourself. Do you not fear that this intransigence might scare, frighten off moderate Arab countries and your friends, such as France, other European countries and the U.S.? When you bomb the Iraqi atomic reactor, when you bomb buildings in Beirut, as you did this summer, when you reject Prince Fahd's peace plan, and reject dialogue?
A: Mr. Moderator. Until now the most friendly question put to me ... the most benevolent question put to me. III answer each ... first of all, about intransigence. Do you exactly know what it means? Can you explain to me what it means. Intransigence? I hear the words intransigence, hard line, obstinate, adamant. Shakespeare used to say, words, words, words: nothing more. Because we made peace. The government which I have the honor to head. With Egypt and gave up the whole Sinai peninsula. Intransigence? We gave up our oil in the gulf. Intransigence? We gave up two airfields, considered to be some of the most sophisticated in the world. Intransigence? And then we have to evacuate our good men from northern Sinai. This is the most painful sacrifice. I say so, openly, in the hearing distance of my nations. We did that for the sake of peace, and therefore there is also opposition between my people. Intransigence? Where is intransigence? I suggested autonomy for the Palestinian Arabs in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District. Our idea. Neither the Americans nor the Egyptians made this suggestion. Our own original idea. Let them live on their own. Let them elect their Administrative Council. We will not interfere at all. We shall withdraw our military government - our proposals. Intransigence? Let us leave it. But then you mentioned the bombardment of Beirut. We didn't bomb Beirut. We bombed the headquarters of the so-called PLO in Beirut ... And from those headquarters came all the orders to kill in our country and in Europe as well, including France. Yes, there were civilian casualties. We regret it very deeply. I say so openly, until this very day. But there was no option. Because they killed one day three of our people and wounded more than 25. It was almost a massacre in one of our townships. When they were bombarded by the Katyushas, the missiles, day in, day out, night in, night out, Nahariya, Kiryat Shmona, Metulla, and all the other villages and townships in the northern Galilee. So what should we have done? To let them spill our blood. To let them kill our people? We didn't have any option. The headquarters shouldn't be among civilian population. We looked for the headquarters time and again...for a year. Not one civilian was even hurt. But after that massacre we didn't have another option. Then about the reactor in Iraq. I already explained to you. That was salvation for our children. Because if Mr. Saddam Hussein had three atomic bombs of the Hiroshima type, he would have destroyed 600,000 Jews, and amongst them 150,000 children. So told me our scientists. So this was an act of salvation. Therefore, remove that intransigence. It doesn't have any meaning whatsoever. And then understand that when a nation defends itself, then it has sometimes to undertake harsh measures. Sometimes you are sorry for it. But you have to defend your people. Attacked all the time, as I told you, for weeks on end, by those missiles and those guns supplied by the Soviet Union. You didn't have such an experience. Don't judge, lest you yourself be judged one day ... you remember very well who said so.
Q: When you were forced to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor, there was some malaise in relations between Israel and France.
A: ... I suppose that there was an official statement by France, that they didn't like it or they condemn it ... The Security Council condemned it. So what? But we had to fulfill our duty. I will tell you something - but secretly. Don't tell your friends. I prefer to save the lives of our children and be condemned by a Security Council, than vice-versa. Clear?
Q: Clear. If France helps Iraq rebuild the nuclear reactor, will there not be an adverse reaction on the part of Israel?
A: Yes. We heard about it. That the French Government would like to see the reactor rebuilt. They assured us until now that they won't allow it to be turned into an atomic bomb-producing reactor. We are very sceptical, because we know the details. I will give them to you ... you can build an atomic bomb of the Hiroshima type, in other words, 20 kilotons, from 20 kilograms of enriched uranium, or from 7 kilograms of plutonium. So that is a very dangerous situation when again there will be a reactor. May I say, perhaps I can appeal to President Mitterrand, rather. Let it be as it is. Don't* rebuild that reactor, because, not immediately, one day it can be again a danger to Israel. And we shall not permit such a danger, because, you know, we had five wars. We gave great casualties - 15,000 soldiers killed, the best of our men. 30,000 invalids. This is a very small nation. Make out the account in proportion of the French people. You will see what horrible casualties they are. But the children were not hit. We defended them, and we repelled the enemy. Atomic bombs will hit and kill our children. That we cannot allow under any circumstances. You know that we lost during the Holocaust a million and a half-million children? That never happened in human history. You don't know about such a possibility at all. And thank God that you don't know. I wouldn't like any nation to know that. A million and a half-a-million of our little children got killed. Should we lose now here tens of thousands of our children? No sir. So rather let France not rebuild that reactor. This is my friendly advice.
Q: What will you tell President Mitterrand when you see him?
A: Well, if he comes, Mr. Mitterrand will probably visit Israel in January. And will be received very cordially, very respectfully and as a friend of Israel. And I will take it up with him, no doubt - but if I have an occasion now, shouldn't I use it? Q: If predictions based on statistics are reliable, about 20,000 people will emigrate from Israel in 1982, and only about 10,000 will immigrate to Israel. Thus, twice as many people will leave the country as will immigrate to it. Do you think that for young people Israel can continue to be the Promised Land?
A: Yes. I believe so. So it is. So it will be. But we have problems. The, immigration into Israel lately became much lower than it used to be, and was even last year a larger emigration than immigration. This is a very sad phenomenon. We have of course, to correct it, I believe that it will be corrected. For the young people Israel is still a challenge. Therefore almost all the immigrants into Israel from the United States of America and Canada - and their count was in the thousands of young people - all of them are really of very young age. Because the youth likes a challenge. We have to build up, to rebuild this country which was a desert, returning to green pasture, and a renewed nation - an ancient people. But a young nation. But still, we have to pay much attention to it, that the rate of the immigration be much larger than that of emigration. Especially we have a problem with the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union there are now still nearly 3,000,000 Jews. And we have already 130,000 immigrants out of there. But I believe there can come a million. In the Soviet Union there are always surprises. The Politburo takes a decision -one year they had more than 50,000 immigrants into Israel from the Soviet Union. One year, 44,000, another year 34,000, another year, 25,000. Lately we have had only a few thousand. But we believe it will improve. There will be another decision, and more will come. So yes, to your answer I say yes. It is the land of a challenge and of a promise for our young people. If there are difficulties we shall overcome them, and our young people will come together with us to build this country of their forefathers and their children, and their children's children.
Q: Israel has a record inflation rate, unemployment, a rising crime rate, more emigration than immigration, a rather severe rift between Oriental and European Jews. In Europe one gets the impression that the image of this Promised Land we were shown as children in school is deteriorating. So, Mr. Prime Minister, is Israel becoming a nation like all the nations?
A: Well, my friend, moral crises are now going on throughout the world. I think in France is also a crisis, may I say with all due respect. And in Italy, there is a crisis, and in Germany, and in Poland under a Communist regime. Of course in Russia, although it is covered up, and in the United States of America. We also suffer of certain phenomena of a moral crisis. I don't deny it. But it is a question of faith. I believe with all my heart that we shall overcome. Why shouldn't we have such a faith my friend? We fought the British Empire in the 40's when we were only 600,000 people here, a minority, and around a million and a half-million Arabs was in this very country. We were a minority within the minority. A few thousand fighters. We had absolute faith that we shall have our own country, our own government, our own parliament. We reached it. Then we brought in one year 250,000 immigrants, another 230,000. There was even a year of 280,000. Why shouldn't we have faith that so it will be in the future, basing ourselves on our experience of the past? There is a crisis. We shall overcome it. I don't deny it is. But we have deep faith in our heart that we shall come out well.
Q: Mr. Begin, you respect the Sabbath. You are what is called a religious man in Israel. You won the elections partly thanks to the support of the religious parties. But one gets the impression throughout the country that society is becoming more and more secular. So do you not think that the concessions you had to make to the religious parties, such as prohibiting El Al flights on Saturdays, go against the evolution of Israeli society?
A: Oh, this is so self-understood, my dear friend. I have a deep sentiment for our religious tradition. We had a great teacher (you will never have heard about him). His name is Ahad Ha'am. He was a complete agnostic. He was not a religious man, but he in his philosophic articles used to explain that our religion is part of our nationhood, of our national tradition, which is absolutely true. I have a deep sentiment for our religious tradition also because it is part of our national history. And I was brought up by my parents in our home in that respect, and I still behave like this. Yes, we keep Kosher in our home. I keep Shabbat. I don't drive on Shabbat. I don't smoke on Shabbat. I have to reveal to you: lately I don't smoke at all, but when I did smoke, I didn't smoke on Shabbat and I observe Shabbat. On Saturday night there come to me sages, great sages, professors, and we learn together the Bible. This is also proof of the deep engraved respect for our tradition. It's all true. But there is no question. We don't force anybody. A private person at his own is free to do in the State of Israel whatever he wants to: If a man wants to go to the seashore on Saturday to bathe in the sea, he goes. Nobody interferes with him. Public service is a different story - that's on behalf of the state, and all my predecessors also agreed. They must rest on the Shabbat, but privately anybody can do whatever he wants to. Vive la liberte.
Q: What is your reply to the accusations of Amnesty International - whose objectivity is widely recognized -according to which the Israeli forces in the West Bank have been mistreating civilians, carrying out arbitrary arrests and blowing up houses?
A: I respect very much the international organization Amnesty. I think it plays a very serious role in our time of great cruelty throughout the world. But they do not always have accurate reports. I can say it from my own experience. I know the facts. Nobody can tell me about it: They send somebody. He takes note of some reports. Not always are they accurate. No sir, I saw yesterday pictures, when there was an Arab demonstration at a certain village, and there were girls also demonstrating. Fine girls. I don't have anything against them. But they tried all the time to push our soldiers. They almost attacked our soldiers. You should have seen those young soldiers, how they behaved. Under occupation so-called in almost any other country a soldier would have drawn his rifle - they didn't. They pushed them back delicately. Where is the cruelty? There is no cruelty whatsoever. If we are not hurt, nobody is going to be hurt. If somebody throws either stones or hand grenades or Molotov cocktails on our soldiers, they have to undertake measures to put an end to it. We are not going to let them kill either our soldiers or our children. But those reports are absolutely inaccurate. I remember when I became Prime Minister, nearly five years ago, there came the man in charge of security, and then there were articles published in the famous English newspaper "Sunday Times". That in Israel there is torture of prisoners. You remember in Algeria such accusations, and they were not disproved. But there were such accusations in the "Sunday Times". Several articles. The first question I asked the man is: Avraham (so was his name). Tell me: Is there torture in our country? He looked into my eyes and said: Prime Minister. I swear to you, there is no torture in our country. I believed him. I believe him. There is no torture in this country at all. Even if we face sometimes horrible murders. Just there was a trial of those men who killed six of our people in Hebron when they came back on Friday from prayer, from worship. Why should they have been killed? There is no such cruel attitude whatsoever. This is a country built on humanitarianism, my friend, on the great human values. We do not deviate from them, and the report is inaccurate.
Q: Today the world - especially the third world - is rife with war. Do you believe a Third World War may break out soon, and do you think the world has the capacity to face such a war?
A: There will never be a Third World War, and humanity will live in peace. You know how many local wars did take place since the end of the Second World War? 37 local wars and one of them was turned into a World War. That's very characteristic ... Because a Third World War ... will be of mutual total destruction of humanity. And there is divine providence, in which I believe, which leads humanity not to destruction, but to life. Yes, there are sometimes great crises. You know that the Nazis were very close to discover an atomic bomb. Then the world would have been lost no doubt...and the first nations to discover this horrible weapon were the Western powers. Later Russia. So we have to believe in divine providence, and in the wisdom of man, given by God to men. There won't be any Third World War. I would like that the local wars do not take place. They also cost horrible sacrifices and casualties - I suppose millions of people got killed since the Second World War came to an end. This is the reason why since I became Prime Minister, my colleagues and I strive all the time to make peace and give peace to our people, because our people didn't have peace even one day ... Therefore I strive so much to get peace - at least an historic period - two, three, four generations, 50 years. Let them have peace. Any nation had wars, but all the wars came to an end. Therefore I state that all the wars are avoidable. Only peace is inevitable.