Shortly after the Inner Cabinet decision, Mr. Peres travelled to Washington for meetings with Secretary Shultz and other administration officials. Mr. Shultz reiterated previous U.S. policy based on the 1 September 1982 Reagan Plan, and said that the U.S. supported the Israeli view on Soviet participation in an international conference. The U.S. was also against the conference having any power to impose decisions on the parties. On that day the Soviet Union said that the international conference was more than an umbrella for direct talks and called on the PLO to nominate the Palestinian representatives. Text of Mr. Peres' interview upon his return from the United States follow:
Q: Have you returned from the U.S. with an additional element in the peace process, which you discussed with Secretary of State Shultz?
A: I believe I have returned with matters that were clear before and are even clearer today: The fact that the U.S. will stand behind us in demands vis-a-vis the USSR on the issues of immigration and the renewal of relations, that the U.S. is firmly against the conference's authority to impose [solutions]. At the same time, I think we are all interested in the peace process not being discontinued or destroyed, because the Arab world also has other options, and so does the USSR.
Q: Your colleagues in the Likud disapproved of the fact that Shultz again mentioned the Reagan plan, which you also do not support.
A: The answer to this is as follows: I don't believe the issue of Jerusalem and of [the] Reagan [plan] was in the prepared text of the speech. I believe Shultz was asked [a question), and these are the traditional American stands, there is nothing new in them. However, to the best of my knowledge, this was not part of the prepared text.
Q: You do oppose the Reagan plan, don't you?
A: What a question! We have constantly said that we find the Reagan plan unacceptable. We welcomed Reagan's initiative, but not the plan. As for Jerusalem, there is nothing to even talk about. These are no more than hollow contrivances by irresponsible circles in Israel. Nor do I understand their reasoning: why do they want to create the impression that there are, as it were, disagreements in Israel regarding Jerusalem. What is their interest? How much can one endanger Israel's common stands for the sake of internal politics? I don't understand this.
Q: A sharp controversy with Prime Minister Shamir preceded your departure. What kind of an atmosphere have you returned to?
A: The prime minister can decide what atmosphere he wants to create. Of course, one can create an atmosphere of dismantling, of contempt, of haughtiness. This will affect the government's existence and the course of its work. I was also prime minister, and I did all I could to maintain a respectable style, without contempt or scorn. Let's say Mr. Shamir has a certain opinion, but there are 50% which hold a different view. Just as I don't complain about Shamir having a different opinion, how can he complain that somebody else holds a different view? The problem is not that I am asking anybody to change his mind. I simply think that there is a need to maintain respect and seriousness. I did this for two years and a month, and during that period I did not utter one word of contempt or lack of respect, heaven forbid, even when Mr. Shamir's opinion different from mine, as for example on the issue of the withdrawal from Lebanon or on Taba.
Q: During your absence from Israel, the Cabinet made a decision on tuition, and the Alignment ministers lost in the vote on this issue.
A: I have heard that there's a problem with the vote, because I left my opinion with the cabinet secretary, saying that I support the minister of education's stand. So did Minister Yaacov Tsur, who was in the U.S. I don't know why this wasn't taken into consideration. Essentially, I think this is a very grave mistake. Why do we have to present Israel, inside and outside, as a country discriminating between Jewish and Arab students. There is a problem of army veterans; they must be granted rights. But there's no sense in creating two levels of tuition in one country. This is a very grave mistake, and it must be corrected as quickly as possible.
Q: Are you going to initiate another vote on the issue in the Cabinet?
A: I don't know what the formal situation is. I will look into it, and only then I will be able to reach a conclusion.
Q: It seems that the Likud has today a majority to prevent early elections.
A: In my opinion, the major problem has been and remains the peace process. Let's say all the Likud members are 100% sure of all they say. Why can't Israel examine if a genuine chance has indeed arisen for direct peace negotiations? The Likud also says there is a need to sit with the Jordanians and the Palestinians, and this is also fraught with the same terrible dangers depicted by Geula Cohen. Why can't we seriously examine the chance of leaving the situation of constant wars, the situation of terrorism, and of returning to a more orderly life? Therefore, this issue will not be dropped from the agenda. The differences in the Knesset of one [vote] here and one there are such that a government can't be managed with a majority relying on Kahane, for example. One must think the matter over well. We have reached self-abasement; we are in fact members of the same government, who are conducting an election campaign against each other. There is also a need to maintain a statehood manner. What is this fear? Mr. Shamir has said several times that he is willing to go to the people. So let us go to the people. It is the people who gave us the mandate, who can cancel it, and who should decide. The decision must be returned to the people when the Cabinet is incapable of deciding.
Q: Are you sure the Alignment will have 61 votes to bring the government down?
A: I'm sure there is a majority among the people in favor of the peace process.