While not diminishing from the gravity of the Reagan plan and the failure of the United States to consult with Israel prior to its public announcement, Ambassador to them have emptied them of their significance, we will be freer to do things we have avoided doing till now because of the commitment to the Camp David Agreements.
Q: Do you expect a difficult period in U.S.-Israel relations because of the interpretations the Americans have given to the Camp David Agreements?
A: One must be very careful with predictions. This administration has proven that when it decides on a certain policy, it tries very vigorously to attain its objectives. If the administration should behave this way vis-a-vis the Palestinian issue as well, there will be a confrontation between Israel and the U.S. We will under no circumstances accept what appeared in the President's message to the Prime Minister. Perhaps when the administration sees that there is no chance of persuading us to agree to things which are contrary to our interests - it will let up and not try to improve agreement on us by means of pressure.
Q: Do you foresee the possibility of a hardening of the Administration's position towards Israel with regard to other subjects, such as curtailing economic and military aid?
A: I would not like to predict anything. No one knows. There are some things coming up which will help us examine the trends: The administration will soon decide the extent of aid for 1983-4. And we shall have to see whether the Administration wishes to use financial aid as a means of pressure, a lever to push us towards the Administration's position - or whether it will be satisfied with an attempt at persuasion only. This administration has already learned the lesson that any attempt to pressure us by economic means does not achieve its aims - and sometimes even achieves the opposite.
Q: When, in your opinion, should one expect the cancellation of the freeze on the 75 F-16 plans to Israel?
A: There is no freeze at least not at this stage. The deal was concluded with Israel a few years ago, and the U.S. promised to supply Israel with 150 F-16 planes. 75 were supplied. The U.S. has to supply another 75 within a few years, and not immediately. But in order to start the production processes so as to execute the supply, the Administration has to announce its intentions to Congress to supply Israel with the planes, and if within 30 days Congress does not oppose this, it is seen as confirmation on its part. The Administration was about to announce the deal during the days of the war in Lebanon, and then it was decided without any special discussions, that this was not the right time. It was decided to wait.
Q: Operation Peace for Galilee, in which Israel sacrificed 340 victims and another 2,000 wounded, provided the U.S. with a notable victory and strengthened its position in the Middle East, and the world. Would you say that the U.S. is properly repaying Israel or is behaving ungratefully towards it?
A: There is a time factor, only after some time will we be able to answer these questions. Only after some time will the U.S. digest this and understand the extent of the gains that fell in its lap as a result of the war in Lebanon. In my opinion, the gains are tremendous. Many also think so, in the U.S. The whole position of the U.S. towards the U.S.S.R. has changed from one extreme to the other for two main reasons.
1) The proof that we have come up with the answer to some of the Soviet weaponry and particularly to that which until recently was thought to be of great proficiency, especially the anti-plane systems. We ourselves experienced the power of these arms when many of our planes were downed in the Yom missiles. In the U.S. there prevailed for many years a distressing assumption that in a possible confrontation with the U.S.S.R. the West would lose a significant portion of its planes. Today it is clear that Israel and the West have the answer and it is possible to attack the Soviet systems and neutralize them - without significant losses. The balance between the blocs and the powers -as they were understood and perceived during the years - have greatly changed as a result of the lessons of the Lebanese war.
2) At present, the U.S.S.R. has ceased being an influential factor in the Middle East. Only the U.S. has remained. The entire Arab world travels to Washington and not to Moscow. The tremendous gains and profits which have sprung up for the U.S. are, therefore, completely clear and very impressive. But only the near future will prove whether the U.S. intends to repay us for these gains or to use them against us, to cooperate with us as strategic allies, or to pocket the profits and "repay" us with a kick.
Q: Is Israel presenting any conditions under which it will share with the U.S. the lessons it learned in the war and the technological secrets which it used against the Soviet missiles?
A: We have not yet reached the stage where we are talking of the ways and means of passing on this information.
Q: The Defence Minister says over and over again that Jordan is the Palestinian state. Do you think as he does?
A: It is not and cannot be a matter of thoughts and opinions in this case. It is a fact! Jordan occupied three-fourths of the territory which the League of Nations set aside at the time as the British Mandate for the purpose of establishing a national homeland for the Jews. That does not answer the question of what the borders of the Palestinian state should be. Hussein would like his kingdom to stretch to the 1949 borders. And in June 1967 he wanted to reach the sea and set out to realize his wishes. There are those who think that in addition to the Palestinian state which exists in Jordan, another one should be established on the West Bank. Israel does not think so.
Q: While the U.S. is interested in the existence of Hussein's regime, is it wise to repeatedly declare that Jordan is the Palestinian state?
A: Yes. We should repeat this claim again and again because the opposite claim is that there is a poor people, four million strong, without a home or a state, as the Jews were before the establishment of the State of Israel, and that this nation too deserves a home of its own and should be given a home in the area of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It is very difficult to convince those who accept this premise of the justice of our reasoning. Only when people understand that the Palestinians have a state of their own and that their claim is for expanding its borders or for establishing a second Palestinian state - only then is it possible to convince them of the justice of our opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Q: And does this claim in your opinion, have a reasonable chance of being accepted!
A: Certainly! We began very late, but facts are acceptable to reasonable people. And as for Hussein's regime: It does not concern us. We do not demand his removal from the throne. Jordan as a Palestinian state under Hussein's rule will not be the only Arab state where the ruler is not elected by the nation. What kind of regime there will be in the Palestinian state east of the Jordan, and who will rule - that is the business of the Palestinian state's residents.