In the following interview, Mr. Shamir revealed that he did not see the UN address by the prime minister. Mr. Peres did tell him that he intended to include reference to an international involvement. He did not share the prime minister's view that the peace plan he presented in the UN led to a dramatic shift in the peace process. He did not rule out early elections in view of the gap between Labor and the Likud on the issue of an international accompaniment as a prior condition for negotiations. Mr. Shamir also said that Secretary of State Shultz agreed with him that there should be no international conference. The foreign minister had no knowledge of planned low-level Israeli-Jordanian negotiations. He did not attach much importance to the appointment of an American diplomat, Wat Cluverius, as a special ambassador for the peace process. Text:
Q: This evening some Likud ministers said the party should ready itself for early elections. Do you agree?
A: This isn't the first time we have discussed such a possibility. It's only natural: This unique partnership is far from ordinary, so the possibility always exists of the government's dissolution in one way or another.
Q: Would you say the possibility is now greater than it was a month or two ago?
A: Certainly. This is a critical period. Because the moment the government begins to discuss matters relating to the political solution, the relations between ourselves and our neighbors, to the future of Eretz-Israel - everything becomes extremely sensitive, very tense, and naturally various possibilities are to be expected.
Q: Including elections?
A: Including elections.
Q: It's been reported that you were privy to all of the prime minister's secret contacts. But are there contacts which you are not aware of, as Likud ministers maintained today?
A: I don't know. It's possible. According to the agreement, I have to be updated on every political move, whether open or secret. I receive reports. You needn't think that just because I am updated I also agree with every move. The cooperation between the prime minister and myself must not produce any new political decision which isn't brought before the inner cabinet.
Q: On the basis of what you know, is prime minister Peres right when he assesses that his initiative has brought about a dramatic shift in the peace process?
A: I don't agree with that assessment. I don't yet see this dramatic shift. I don't see any new peace initiative. After all, these are matters which have long been under discussion. The aspiration for direct negotiations with Jordan is nothing new. Unfortunately, I don't yet see that we are close to such negotiations. The same obstacles continue to exist: Jordan doesn't want to dissolve its partnership with the PLO, Jordan is interested in holding discussions on peace within the framework of an international conference in place of direct negotiations. Thus, the obstacles we have always known about still exist today.
Q: One such obstacle, at least between the Alignment and the Likud, is the so-called "international accompaniment" to the direct talks between Israel and Jordan. You are against any international forum, yet you voted for the prime minister's initiative this week in the Knesset.
A: I regard this matter of "accompaniment" as a danger, this entire matter of an international conference. This is something that has been threatening us for many years, and all previous Israel governments have opposed an international conference.
Q: Could you please, then, explain why Menachem Begin, when he presented the Likud government in 1977, said, "the government herewith states its readiness to take part in the Geneva Conference when it is convened by the U.S. and the USSR on the basis of the relevant Security Council resolutions"?
A: That was before Camp David. The situation was completely different. Today we have the Camp David Agreement in which we arranged, in concurrence with Egypt and the U.S., not only the relations between us and Egypt, but also the solution of the Palestinian problem. Today there is no need for an international conference such as the Arabs demand, such as the Soviets demand, a conference with the participation of the five permanent members of the Security Council with the addition of all the neighboring Arab states - Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon - and the PLO. And this whole tribunal will have to decide on the future of Eretz-Israel, and without peace? This is what the Arabs are constantly demanding, and the USSR supports this position. They saw: An international conference in order to implement 242.
Q: Yet what's wrong with deviating from Camp David if it advances the peace process?
A: There is no better solution than the Camp David Accord. In that agreement we are standing on an iron bridge in the face of all international pressure. That is the first and only agreement signed by Israel, the largest Arab state, and the U.S.
Q: Do you maintain that the prime minister is deviating from Camp David?
A: Negotiations haven't yet begun. But we insist on this, and it's stated in the basic policy guidelines: That in negotiations Israel will propose to Jordan the Camp David Accords.
Q: Some reports say that you and Mr. Peres coordinated the issue of the "international accompaniment" prior to his U.S. trip, with the aim of excluding the PLO from negotiations. Is this correct?
A: I was not in coordination with him. Before his trip, when I asked him about the content of his speech to the U.N., he said it would be more or less in the spirit of his statement in the Knesset [on 10.6.851 in which he mentioned some sort of involvement of an international element, an international forum. That was the coordination. I did not see the speech.
Q: Then you agreed to the principle of an international forum?
A: I didn't get into a discussion with him. I told you earlier that in the reports I receive from the prime ministers we won't get into political discussions. He reports to me. If policy has to be decided on, that has to come before the inner cabinet. In this instance, too, if he actually intended to go before the U.N. and propose, say, a plan containing an international forum of one kind or another, then he should have brought it before the inner cabinet.
Q: But you weren't surprised by the content of the U.N. speech?
A: I wasn't very pleased at certain portions of it, and on this point also he didn't express himself as he did in the Knesset. I wouldn't have said these things. I regard it as a certain danger, for one thing because in our opposition to an international conference we have a tremendous partner: The United States has always opposed such an international conference, and it continues to be opposed. Now, because of the stand taken by the prime minister, this opposition might be weakened. This weakens our position.
Q: Did Secretary of State Shultz tell you that the U.S. is against an international conference in your recent talk with him?
A: Definitely. I asked him. When I explained to him my views, and told him why I continue to oppose an international conference. I asked him, 'and what is your position? Do you continue to oppose this?' He said, yes, we continue to be opposed. I will add that to this day they are against an international conference, but they are looking for - as he told me - some kind of formula of international participation in this process, but not an international conference such as the Arabs and the Soviets always refer to. I want to add that the prime minister stated four qualifications to agreement to an international conference, as far as I remember: that all the participants must agree about the [other] participants, that the decisions of such a conference must be adopted by consensus, and other such matters. I am certain that none of the other parties will accept these conditions.
Q: Do you accept the conditions laid down by the prime minister?
A: I say it's superfluous, it invalidates the entire matter, it does away with it. But I am apprehensive about one thing: The entire world press has published that Israel made a tremendous concession, that it agreed to an international conference. But no one mentions the conditions. And when they come to us and say, 'you said you accept an international conference, so do so,' and we then begin to mention the conditions - we will be in difficult straits.
Q: Do you know anything about the idea of Israeli-Jordanian power sharing in Judea and Samaria, as reported in the press?
A: I haven't the slightest idea. No one has told me about such a plan. I haven't heard of such a plan. I haven't heard that anyone in the Israel government is about to propose such a plan. If it has been proposed, I will regard it as a serious violation of the coalition agreement.
Q: Sources in the prime minister's office told "Ha'aretz," which published the report, that it's not without foundation.
A: I will be very sorry if this is so. I will view this as constituting a major difficulty for maintaining the joint government. Because if this was proposed, and I don't know about it, and it wasn't brought to the inner cabinet, it would be an extremely grave phenomenon.
Q: Do you know anything abut the appointment of Arab mayors in Judea-Samaria?
A: I am not aware of this. I am not aware that there is any talk of this right now. I know no details. I want to add a general comment here: one of the bases regards this issue on which we are divided - relations with the Arab states -no step is to be undertaken without the agreement of both the Likud and the Alignment. That is the basis. If the Alignment wants to maintain the government, it must see to this. Perhaps this is hard for the Alignment, perhaps they think it's not worth their while, it binds their hands. But then they have to draw the conclusions. We also made concessions in this agreement. But all of us must maintain the agreement.
Q: According to press reports, a meeting will soon take place between Israeli and Jordanian officials to clarify the ways to open direct talks. Do you have any knowledge of this?
A: I view this as someone's assessment, it is not a fact.
Q: The assessment of Richard Murphy, the Assistant U.S. Secretary of State.
A: It may be. Today we heard Murphy say that there is no progress in the Middle East, that time is being wasted. The reports from Amman also don't herald the removal of obstacles on the road to negotiations. The agreement between Jordan and the PLO remains valid. So I don't know what the basis is of all these hopes, all this optimism.
Q: The impression seems to be that you and Professor Arens - both of you opposed the Camp David Accords at the time - are coming across as moderates, while Sharon and Levy, who supported the accord, are suddenly manifesting tougher positions. Would you agree?
A: It's not a matter of moderation or of toughness. It's a matter of a difference in reaction, in behavior. As I said earlier, there are no differences among us, there are no differences regarding the major political issues. There are nuances, there are differences of reaction, in the manner of reaction; and then each person weighs what's better, what best serves our interest - my reaction or Professor Aren's, or someone else's.
Q: When you point to the Camp David Accords as the foundation for peace in the Middle East, how do you look back on your vote against them at the time?
A: I didn't vote against at the time, though I did abstain, and I explained it then. I wasn't an advocate, in particular of certain portions of those accords - but today it's a fact. It's a political fact which we can't disregard, and in my view it's not worth our while to disregard it.
Q: In less than a year you will probably be prime minister. Will the pace of the peace process be slowed down, will the conception be different?
A: First of all we have to see what will transpire until then, during the coming year. I wholeheartedly want to advance the peace between us and our neighbors, but without forgoing Israel's most vital interests.
Q: And is it your assessment that the Jordanians will be ready to enter negotiations under those conditions?
A: It's my assessment that in this way we can arrive at peace. I saw that during the years of Likud government, the Arabs around us began to get used to the situation. So did other countries. There were no pressures at all on us. In recent years, was there any U.S. pressure against the settlements, did they pressure us about borders, about Jerusalem? Nothing. They began to get used to it.
Q: Since the prime minister's speech in the U.N. various thing have happened in the region: An agreement was signed between Jordan and Syria, today it was reported that the Hussein-Arafat agreement is still valid. Do you think the prime minister's initiative led to the emergence of new coalitions in the Arab world?
A: I don't think so. I think this is a process generated by various factors, various developments. I don't see any major changes here, except for the rapprochement and we don't yet know how serious it is - between Jordan and Syria. That is beginning to look more serious, and it could herald some sort of change in the regional situation. As for the rest, from the first I regarded the Arafat-Hussein agreement as a highly negative development from the standpoint of the peace with Israel, and unfortunately this is still so. Relations with Egypt aren't of the best, there are many difficulties there, too, which don't augur well. But we must continue on our path.
Q: Could you comment on Secretary of State Shultz appointment of Wat Cluverius - who isn't know as being particularly sympathetic to Israel - as special ambassador for the peace process?
A: I cannot express my opinion regarding appointments within the American political establishment. I do not attach any special importance [to the appointment] because after all, we have seen that it's governments that make decisions, not officials.
Q: Still, Shultz appoints a special ambassador for the negotiations and then appoints Morris Draper, a senior State Department official, as Consul-General in East Jerusalem, where contacts are held with Arabs in Judea-Samaria.
A: First of all, I am not happy about the fact that there is an American Consul-General in Jerusalem. I would like to see here a consulate subordinate to the embassy - which, unfortunately, is still in Tel Aviv; I would like to see the embassy [in Jerusalem]. So we always have reservations about this role of U.S. Consul-General in Jerusalem. I know that Draper aspired to be Ambassador to Israel; he likes our country. But for now, hell have to make do with this.
Q: Is there any basis to the reports about a change in Soviet policy vis-a-vis Israel and Jewish emigration? What would you say is the source of these reports? Is the USSR interested in feeding us groundless reports?
A: I would be very cautious about saying that. I only know that, unfortunately, there is as yet no basis for these rumors. We see no changes in Soviet policy regarding the exist of Jews from the USSR. We are doing a good deal in this matter.
Q: What, then, is behind these reports?
A: I don't know, perhaps they're wishful thinking, perhaps someone wants to pave the way towards the upcoming summit meeting.
Q: In other words, the Soviets are trying to soften up the Americans?
A: I have no proof of this. I do want to say that on the other hand, I do see certain positive signs in the countries of Eastern Europe, not necessarily from the Soviet Union. In recent days, following my contacts, if you know, with several Eastern European foreign ministers, we have received a report that another Eastern European country, which belongs to the Warsaw pact, wants to strengthen relations with us. In the meantime they have requested that we not name them. We have also had signals from another country, whose foreign minister I met with at the U.N., that they want to go further than what was discussed at our meeting.
Q: Do you connect all this with the forthcoming Reagan-Gorbachev summit?
A: It's possible that there is some kind of Soviet aim to demonstrate that they are more open.
Q: Perhaps an aim to enable their eventual participation in an international conference, even though you have said that you reject their participation even if they renew diplomatic relations with us?
A: I don't reject the participation of the Soviet necessarily. I oppose the actual holding of an international conference. I would see danger in an international conference with the participation of Britain and France as well, because their stand on the issues that interest us is very similar to that of the Soviet Union.
Q: So you don't see any possible U.S.-Soviet agreement on the political process in our region?
A: First of all, it's already known that the Middle East won't be on the agenda of the Reagan-Gorbachev meeting. Secondly, Shultz, in his imminent visit to the USSR, may discuss our region, but he will certainly discuss Jewish emigration from the USSR. We have requested him to do this, and he has promised to do so. But well have to wait and see what the results will be.
Q: At age 70, does a politician begin to think of retirement, etc.?
A: One always thinks of such things But, you know, in the trance of activity one doesn't have time to think about this. That reminds me: About a year ago I met with Gromyko, who had just turned 75. I congratulated him and asked him how he felt. He said that before he had reached this age borderline, he'd been told that beyond that line everything would look completely different. But you see, he said, I have reached this border, and there's been no change, they are the same. Perhaps I may be permitted to say the same: I feel no change.