Since his return from the United States, the Likud ministers have openly rejected Mr. Peres' call for negotiations under international auspices. They demanded that in his Knesset address, scheduled for 28 October, the prime minister include their position as well as his own, as stated in the General Assembly. His statement would be in the framework of a vote of confidence in the government. In this interview he once again explained the meaning of international accompaniment and international auspices that appeared in Security Council Resolution 338. Text:
Q: A short time ago the Likud ministers demanded that you include in your Knesset statement tomorrow the main points of their stand regarding negotiations with Jordan. You refused: Does this mean a crisis?
A: I don't think so, but I will see to it tomorrow in the Knesset that all my remarks at the General Assembly remain as they are. I will not backtrack from even one point.
Q: And if the Likud ministers continue to insist that you include at least an allusion to their stand?
A: I don't know what 'their stand' means. There are no Likud stands...
Q: But there are the 'four noes.'
A: I don't recognize the 'four noes,' I recognize the basic policy guidelines. My speech is consistent with those guidelines, I have no intention of deviating from the basic guidelines, as I did not deviate from them at the U.N.
Q: Realistically, do you expect a vote of confidence that will leave the government whole?
A: I think so. I think that tomorrow, ultimately, the Likud will not want to generate a crisis. Over what? Because a chance has opened for dialogue? Because the PLO has lost strength? Because Jordan didn't get arms? Because Israel's international standing has improved? What do they object to? I really don't understand this whole matter. One could think that we have undergone some sort of catastrophe. Show me one area in which our standing hasn't improved. So if someone wants to introduce noes,' let him [try to] get a majority in the cabinet. We have no program of 'noes. 'We are not a country of 'noes.'
Q: Perhaps Mr. Shamir is right in saying that this is all much ado about nothing. He cited Jordan's information minister who said that without an international conference and without the PLO, there will be no talks.
A: You'll have to ask him. There is an unprecedented declaration by King Hussein. For the first time he reacts positively in public to [an Israel] government statement, saying it contains a new spirit. Now look at what has happened. Today Vernon Walters, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said the PLO has removed itself from the negotiating process. The Elys6e spokesman says that the President of France is reconsidering his attitude toward the PLO. King Hussein says he is reassessing the situation. You can't go on clutching at straws all the time. Things speak for themselves, and nothing will help: a very serious change has occurred in Israel's standing. I think that Israel has scored points, it hasn't lost even one point. So is some party - even an important party - going to father and do what? Carry our a party maneuver?
Q: Vernon Walters also said low-level talks would open very soon between what is known and what is not known. I want to stress two points here which it is important to understand: What I agree with secretary of State Shultz, with the concurrence of both of us, is that there will be direct negotiations. There is no substitute for direct negotiations, neither logically nor formally. And that it's preferable to remove the PLO from the framework of the direct negotiations, because this is an organization that engages in terrorism and wants to destroy Israel; and that it is not wise to have countries without diplomatic relations with Israel be part of the framework accompanying the negotiations. Therefore I am easy about the situation; I don't say it's all in our pocket and the process is complete. But if you compare the overall political picture today with that of two weeks ago, I believe a considerable change has occurred.
Q: There's a feeling among the public that you are hiding most of what's really going on.
A: I don't think that I am hiding anything. There is naturally part of the negotiations that consists of secret diplomacy. I don't know any country in the world in which there is no secret diplomacy; but the main points are known. Whether this person met with that person, and so forth - perhaps not everything is published, nor should it be made public. But the main moves are visible to all. We hope, as the basic policy guidelines state, to enter into direct negotiations with Jordan without preconditions, and to talk seriously.
Q: Within 30 days, as you spoke about?
A: The matter of the 30 days was intended to underscore Israel's readiness to make rapid progress. It doesn't depend on us alone. It depends on Jordan also.
Q: The Likud has a scenario that at the Reagan-Gorbachev meeting agreement will be reached on the international auspices, then negotiations in January - and then you'll call an election.
A: I don't know if the Likud organizes the agendas of Reagan and Gorbachev. I'm really not sure about that. But if I'm not mistaken, they also have a few other subjects beside our own issue. I doubt that our issue, as such, will even come up at their summit meeting. I think it will come up in advance contacts between the U.S. and Moscow. Now I want to add something more: Israel accepted [Security Council Resolution] 338. 338 contains the phrase "appropriate auspices" - and we have to determine what that is.
Q: Appropriate auspices for direct negotiations?
A: No, it doesn't say that. It says only peace negotiations. Formally, we cannot, even if wished to, as a country that accepted 338, backtrack from this matter. I used the term "international forum." An international forum could consist even of America-Jordan-Israel. It could be America-Jordan-Israel plus one more country or two more countries. At this moment no such framework or forum has been worked out. What has been worked out is that whatever is or is not established cannot replace direct negotiations.
Q: In this connection, the "New York Times" reports today that the USSR will gradually renew its diplomatic relations with us, and so forth. Is this correct?
A: I have no proof of this, and I must constantly distinguish between the winds that are blowing and the facts that are determined. They are two different things. In my talk with the Soviet foreign minister and with Dobrynin, it was my impression that the atmosphere was a business-like one. They spoke substantively, without the obsessions, without the hatreds, though also without enthusiasm. That was also the impression gleaned by Mitterand. There is no doubt that there has been a change in the tone; there is doubt as to whether there has been a change of content.
Q: Can you comment on the possibility that the Russians will allow Jews to emigrate, and that, as you said, France will help in this matter?
A: I tried to compare all the talks that Soviet representatives held with our representatives, including my own talk. From all the talks I learned one thing: That the main factor that interferes with the resumption of Aliya, or that interfered most with the maintenance of aliya, was the dropout matter. So we are looking for ways to overcome the dropout danger. Direct flights from Russia to Israel are one way to do so. I was very released that President Mitterand offered his good offices in this matter. He says, if you reach an agreement with the Soviets, France will supply you with means of transportation. He also suggested that I say so publicly - which is why I did so.
Q: Did you ask Secretary of State Shultz to broach these subjects in his forthcoming visit to the USSR?
A: I did, and he agreed, and I am certain he will broach them.
Q: The immigration issue, or the renewal of diplomatic relations?
A: Both. After all, we will not regret it if the Russians renew diplomatic Relations with Israel. Although in my heart, if I were asked - and I was asked what is more important for Israel: diplomatic relations or the immigration of Jews? -Beyond any doubt, Jews take precedence over diplomacy.
Q: What is your scenario for the coming weeks and moments re Jordan?
A: A door that was almost locked has been opened. It hasn't yet been opened sufficiently wide so that the peace process can pass through it in its total dimension and size. In my view a very important opportunity has been forged. In my view a dynamic has been created in the situation. Today the problem is to control this dynamic and to turn it in the right direction. I expect a great many difficulties and many disappointments; I expect that we will have to use a great many means. But what we have is, if not something whole, at least the prospect of an opening. I definitely welcome this, I think we have all hoped for this for a long time -even the Likud says it wants to go to peace talks - but we have to bear in mind that in peace talks there are two sides, not one side alone. We must listen to the Jordanians, they must listen to us.
Q: Do you envisage talks with Jordan before the rotation?
A: I hope so. Again, it's not wholly dependent on me alone. In the Arab world, too, there are far-reaching changes almost every single day. Yesterday Jordan asked for arms from the U.S. in order to cope with the Syrian danger. Today the Jordanians and Syrians are meeting for talks. That only shows that in the Arab world - but not only there -today is not like yesterday, tomorrow could be different from today.