At the end of October and in early November, both Jordan and Egypt sought to prevail on the PLO leadership to moderate its position regarding the recognition of Israel and publicly state their acceptance of Resolutions 242 and 338. Mr. Shamir felt that the Jordanian moves were somewhat encouraging, while Egypt's ties with the PLO were contrary to the spirit of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. He argued with the prime minister, saying that the Likud vote in the Knesset in favour of the government, did not mean that the Likud agreed to an international conference. Text:
Q: Would you say that recent statements by various Arab figures point to signs of a new deployment on the Arab side?
A: One cannot relate to every statement of an Arab leader. There are exchanges of views nearly every day, some in Arabic, some in English. There are differences in content, in the character of the statements. Overall, the declarations obfuscate the situation more than they clarify it. Generally speaking, one could say that the statements these days by the leaders in the region refer to the possibility of some sort of negotiation with Israel, but here we must say clearly and explicitly: Israel is ready for direct negotiations with Jordan - with Jordan only, not with the PLO under any circumstances, no matter what [the PLO] says. We know the PLO, we know its character, its ideology. There will be no negotiation with the PLO. With Jordan there will be direct negotiations without preconditions, as resolved by the government of Israel. In general, their statements should be regarded as sometimes evasive, sometimes allusions to one side or another. But to date we have not heard a clear answer to this Israeli stand.
Q: Could you comment on the expected political offensive by the PLO and Egypt?
A: I don't know whether we should expect a political offensive. These are all media rumors. I don't assume that any positive initiative can arise after the reception the rulers of Egypt gave the PLO leader. I don't anticipate anything positive or serious from the workshop of Mubarak and Arafat.
Q: What is your reaction to Egypt's aligning itself with the PLO?
A: I regard this in the first place as a violation of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. According to the treaty, Egypt is supposed to prevent all terrorist activity against Israel from its territory or from anywhere else, at its initiative and with its knowledge. Any help to the PLO, any aid, any support for terrorist activity, even if it's verbal support, is tantamount to the violation of the peace treaty. I am very sorry about this, and we are protesting it.
Q: Was King Hussein's demand that the PLO cease terrorist activity and recognize 242 and 338 encouraging as far as Israel is concerned?
A: If this were Jordan's line, one could say that it constitutes some sort of approach towards a positive stand. But if at the same time it's stated that the Hussein-Arafat agreement of 11 February remains valid, one cannot take seriously assorted demands made of Arafat.
Q: Could you comment on the prime minister's statement yesterday regarding international accompaniment for direct negotiations with Jordan?
A: I have already said that Israel's stand is direct negotiations with Jordan. All the rest is not important and cannot be useful, rather the contrary. No one knows what "international accompaniment" means. If the idea is an international conference into whose hands Israel would abandon, or commit, its future, then no one in Israel will accept this. If this is not the idea, then what is?
Q: Will you demand that the inner cabinet decide on this issue?
A: There are regulations and procedures in the work of the government which were decided on by its component elements, and we must work in line with those procedures.
Q: The prime minister said that the Likud gave its consent to the idea of international accompaniment when it voted in favor of the government in the Knesset vote of confidence recently. What is your view?
A: I am sorry but the Likud does not accept any formulation of an international conference. It never gave its consent to this. In the vote of confidence the Likud simply voted for the government's continued existence.