Mr. Shamir reacted to news that not all members of the government were pleased over the interception of the Lybian jet. He felt that such matters were not subject for public debate among ministers, as it would give solace to Israel's enemies. Meanwhile, an Israeli delegation, headed by the director general of the foreign ministry held the first session with Egyptian officials on Taba. Mr. Shamir felt that this would be a lengthy and arduous procedure. He again reiterated his opposition to an international conference that could impose solutions on Israel. Text:
Q: What is your reaction to the opposition voiced by some ministers to the intercept of the Libyan plane?
A: I genuinely regret the public debate among ministers, and even inner cabinet members, on a subject which is so sensitive and so important in our war against terrorism. It seems to me that until now we have never witnessed this kind of striptease before our enemies. I don't think we have to reveal to the entire world the ways in which Israel takes its decisions, or the considerations of the Israeli leadership on a subject as important as the war against terrorism. As for the step itself, I think it is not invalid, and if the possibility, the propitious moment exists, the step should be taken in order to strike at the leaders of the terrorist organizations, the arch-murderers, so as to strike at the terrorist organizations.
Q: In the past Israel has refrained from striking at the terrorist leaders personally, with the possible exception of "Black September." Are you saying that there has been a change in Israeli policy?
A: There is no change. There was never a principle not to strike at terrorist leaders but only at those under their authority. If it hasn't been done, perhaps this is because there was no convenient opportunity. At all events, the leaders of the terrorist organizations have to know that they bear responsibility for their acts of murder and sabotage, and whoever bears responsibility must also be ready to pay the price for that responsibility.
Q: What, in fact, would we have done with the terrorist leaders if they had been apprehended? It's said no discussion was held about this.
A: I don't think that this should be made public, either, or that we should argue about it so that our enemies can hear. I think that there are ways to deal with this, but I do not think it is a subject for public discussion.
Q: Do you fear retaliation by the terrorists or by Syria or Libya?
A: I don't fear retaliatory operations, because the only restriction on the level of the terrorists' attacks against Israel is their ability: If they can strike at us in the severest and most painful manner, they will do so - they do not need to utilize any Israeli operation as a pretext.
Q: Where do the Taba negotiations stand at this time?
A: The negotiations are still in their midst, and at this stage there has been only one session, which went on for less than two days. We will hear a report on this, and I think we have to get used to the fact that a lengthy series of discussions will now be held in order to arrive at a solution of what we call - and what the Egyptians also called initially - the political package deal: That is, a solution of all the pending problems in Israel-Egypt relations, including the problem of Taba, of the normalization, and the rest of the important problems in this totally of the relations between Egypt and Israel.
Q: So you would say there is no need to be in a rush?
A: There is no need to be in a rush in drawing conclusions. By their nature, talks of this kind cannot bring about a speedy summation - within days or weeks - even if all the sides have the best will in the world and full readiness.
Q: It was said that once Israel decided to refer Taba to arbitration, relations with Egypt would improve. Have the Egyptians not kept their promises?
A: I will hear the report this morning from the Director-General of the Foreign Ministry, because those very questions were to have come up in the talks. I do not and did not expect salvation and consolation, or new leafs after every decision and every step of ours in Geneva. The peace process between us and Egypt, and certainly between us and the other Arab states; is a lengthy, protracted, twisting process, with a lot of difficulties, a lot of ups and downs, and we need not expect breakthroughs every day. It is a matter for ongoing work, for an indefatigable effort to overcome obstacles on the road.
Q: An Israeli citizen, Yosef Tahan, may soon be sentenced to death in an Egyptian court for drug-trafficking. Does Israel intend to act in this matter?
A: We are taking an interest in this tragic case, since an Israeli citizen is involved, even though there is not much we can do to help him. But I assume we will find ways to help him and his wretched family to some degree.
Q: Do you agree with the criticism being levelled at Ezer Weizman's recent visit to Egypt, that it led to nothing and was needless?
A: I had no special expectations, so I wasn't surprised at the results of that talk. In general, I do not anticipate surprises on that track. As I said, it is a matter for a lengthy, persistent effort, and for daily attempts to find new paths in order to discover possibilities to overcome the conflicting opinions and the conflicting interests that exist between us and the Arab states - and Egypt is also an Arab state.
Q: Is there reason to be apprehensive about an international forum in talks with Jordan and the Palestinians, since that process seems to have run aground?
A: I am not against negotiations; I favor direct negotiations between us and Jordan, between us and any Arab state. But the Arabs are demanding the convening of an international conference in place of negotiations. This is a longstanding slogan of the Soviets and of the Arab states, the intention being that such an international conference -in which the members of the Security Council, including the USSR, and the Arab states will take part - will impose solutions on Israel. Hence the danger I see in an approach towards any kind of a formula of an international conference. This is what I am warning against.
Q: When you become prime minister, will you use of the term "international forum," will you, like Prime Minister Peres, seek an international forum?
A: This depends on the political developments until that time. We will see how far we can advance the negotiations without harming our interests. An "international forum" is a formulation that hasn't yet been tried or tested, and to this day it has not been accepted either by the Arab states or by members of the Security Council. So I think it is still too early to take a stand on this.
Q: Would you agree that the political scenario in the region is moving in the direction you - and not necessarily Peres - would like to see?
A: I wouldn't say that, because I want developments in the region to be in the direction of peace between Israel and its neighbors. And I am far from satisfied with the fact that no progress is being made in this sphere. But I believe that there is no reason to despair if there are obstacles or if certain expectations do not materialize. We must go on searching for possibilities of peace - but genuine peace, and one which will not harm Israel's security or other fundamental interests.