In the closing days of June and in early July Israel was intensifying the pressure on the P.L.0. West Beirut was bombed, Israeli leaders were saying that there was not much time left. Parallel to the military and psychological pressures, negotiations were continuing between Israel, through Ambassador Habib and the Lebanese government. The latter was relaying message to Arafat in west Beirut. Meanwhile, following a flying visit of President Assad to Riad, the Syrian and Saudi Foreign
Ministers traveled to Washington for talks with the Reagan administration. They wanted to inquire what political gains the Arabs could expect in return for arranging a peaceful P. L. 0. withdrawal from Beirut. Other items discussed were obtaining the agreement of certain countries to absorb the RLO. terrorists from Beirut. In the following interview, Mr. Shamir referred to the growing Israeli impatience with the pace of the diplomatic activity. Text:
Q: Mr. Foreign Minister, in the past few hours has there been any development which has brought nearer the chance of the removal of the terrorists from Beirut through diplomatic means, since the information from Beirut is as if they have reached an agreement on this issue?
A: I can't relate to details of the information published in the last few hours. We know that intensive discussions are being held between the Lebanese government and the terrorists, between the Lebanese government and Philip Habib, on the withdrawal of the terrorists from Beirut. Various ideas are being raised in those talks, and maybe in those ideas there are those which will crystallize into certain plans. We have not yet received any detailed plan which obligates deliberation.
Q: What is the position of Israel, apart from remaining adamant that the terrorists leave Beirut and Lebanon and that they could leave with their personal arms?
A: The position of Israel is clear and unequivocal. The terrorists have to leave Beirut; the terrorist organizations must cease their existence in Beirut and Lebanon. On the method and conditions of their withdrawal, of course, it is possible to conclude, to agree in order to avoid any particular humiliation, or things like that. What is clear is that we must reach a situation whereby the Lebanese government will not be under any pressure of P.L.O. terror.
Q: Israel has already announced that it is against the maintenance of political institutions of the terrorist organizations in Beirut. The question is, Mr. Foreign Minister, why, since Israel has relations with nations in which there are P.L.O. offices?
A: It is impossible to distinguish between political activity of the P.L.O. and terrorist activity. These are two parts of one entity. If any center remains in Lebanon - if it is called "political", or any another name - it means that the existence of the center of the terrorists will continue in Beirut. All the details - whether it will be terrorist or operational, or take on a different form - will become strengthened in time, since even according to declarations by P.L.O. leaders, there is no possibility of distinguishing between their political activity and their terrorist activity. This is a western invention, a European invention, perhaps French. That is not the opinion of the leaders of the terrorist organizations.
Q: One of the proposals is that Israel, simultaneously with the withdrawal of the terrorists, will remove its forces to a few kilometers from Beirut. Has there been such a request from the Lebanese government to us, and what will be the government's attitude to this question?
A: There has been no such appeal from any Lebanese authority, and we do not believe that anyone in Lebanon thinks that suits his interests, that the I.D.F. will not be close to the scene of activity and negotiations.
Q: How much time will the Israeli government allow for the removal of the terrorists by diplomatic means?
A: We haven't given any specific date, but it is clear to everyone that Israel will not wait much longer, cannot wait and cannot agree to any procrastination. It is clear to all that Israel stands firm on this, that the terrorist organization must evacuate Beirut and Lebanon as soon as possible.
Q: And if they won't leave, then Israel is weighing other methods. The question is: Is there no danger, is the. government aware that by entering west Beirut, we can expect a collapse of relations with countries such as the U.S., Egypt or European states?
A: Israel is in contact with all the political elements which accept the position that the terrorist organization, the P.L.O., must evacuate Beirut. We are taking into account all the considerations, all the risks - but also the prospects.
Q: When you say that the government is taking into account all the risks, to what extent is the government taking into account that within Israel protests are being organized against entering Beirut, against the continuation of the war. This evening, there will be a demonstration of "Peace Now". Do these things influence the Government's considerations?
A: These are not new factors in our view. We are a democratic state, and the most marginal element has the full possibility to express its opinions, even in times of emergency, in time of war, even though everyone agree that this may do harm. It is clear - that the government of Israel does not consider the positions of elements which represent a minority, a fringe minority in the nation. We act
according to national interests, as we understand them; and I must tell you that in the past few days we have been receiving many encouraging calls to continue in our line of activity, even from circles, personalities and from people who have not agreed with our outlook all these years.
Q: And you believe that the government will be willing to endorse a military action to enter west Beirut in order to solve the problem?
A: I am not saying, and will not say now, what the government will decide or will be willing to decide. Before the government is one very clear decision: the terrorists must leave Beirut and Lebanon.
Q: And you are not willing to disclose a timetable for that withdrawal?
A: I cannot, and am not authorized; I can only say, and as I said, that must be as soon as possible.
Q: The I.D.F. will be in Lebanon until the political settlements Israel wants are achieved. When will negotiations begin on those agreements? For example, when will negotiations begin on agreements with the Syrians in Lebanon?
A: Of course, everything must come in its own time. After the terrorist organization leave Beirut and Lebanon, possibilities will develop for negotiations and for the attainment of achievements in many fields connected with the relations between us and our neighbors.
Q: Which role do you see for the Syrians in future arrangements?
A: We believe that Syria must leave Lebanon; and we said, and we emphasized before we began Operation "Peace for the Galilee", that we don't want war with Syria.
Q: Is Israel still insisting on the establishment of a peacekeeping force as a condition before the I.D.F. leaves?
A: It is impossible at this time to outline details of any force which will ensure security in the border areas between us and Lebanon. It is clear that we will have to organize such measures and agreements to ensure... that attacks against Israel's border by any party will never be resumed. I don't know; at this moment it is difficult to say whether this should be by means of international forces - or multinational, as we have said - or whether we may be able to. reach a satisfactory agreement with the Lebanese government. It is quite possible that various options will arise; and therefore I would refrain from giving an exact outline of the details.
Q: It is possible, therefore, to reach an agreement without the establishment of an international or multi-national force?
A: There is such a possibility.
Q: The central factor in all negotiations is the U.S. How do you see the relations between Israel and the U.S. with the departure of Alexander Haig and the arrival of George Shultz?
A: We have said that we are sorry about the resignation of Secretary of State Haig, who has shown himself to be a great friend of the Israeli people. Along with this, it is clear that changes in personnel (even important ones) in the U.S. cannot change the essence of the relationship between us and the United States. After all, the policy of the United States is decided first and foremost by the President of the U.S.; and according to the President's statements and activities in the past few days, it is clear to us that there has been no change in the U.S.'s policy of friendship and understanding towards Israel. I believe that at this time, very good relations exist between the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. fully understands the motives for our activity in Lebanon, and even if differences of opinion exist regarding this or that move - something that is definitely normal - our views are identical as to the purpose itself, and on the situation that should be attained in Lebanon and in Israel-Lebanon relations.
Q: One of the problems is where the terrorists will go. It has become clear that no country is willing to absorb them. Perhaps this is not the business of the government of Israel; but do you not believe that Israel should give its opinion on where 5,000 people, who may once have lived in Israel, will go?
A: First of all, it is not our business where members of terrorist organizations, whose business all these years has been the destruction of the State of Israel, will go. The State of Israel cannot feel any responsibility or obligation to worry about their rehabilitation and their existence. I believe that they may find a place, a refuge, in one of the Arab states. In our opinion, it is preferable for it to be as far as possible from our borders. Maybe when they are far from Israel's border they will have a chance to do some soul-searching and to learn that by their terrorist activities they are not making any friends, they are not bringing any benefit to Israeli Arabs, they are not bringing any benefit to the purpose for which they want to fight; and they will reach the conclusion, they, their supporters, and their friends, that the only way to solve the problems of the Middle East is by way of peaceful negotiations.