The Nakoura talks stalled after making no progress. In early January ten Israeli soldiers were wounded in various parts of Lebanon. On 9 January Israel informed UNIFIL that it would not return to the Nakoura talks. On 13 January the cabinet began to discuss the IDF proposal for unilateral withdrawal and redemployment. On the eve of that discussion, Mr. Shamir told Haaretz that Israel cannot withdraw without proper security arrangements, even if the IDF has to remain in Lebanon for a long period. He felt that Israel could not run away from the problem by withdrawal. On the issue of various public and secret meetings of Labour leaders since September, in an effort to move the peace process, Mr. Shamir said that as long as they adhered to the coalition agreement "scrupulously", he would have no problem. But all initiatives must be agreed upon by both the Likud and Labour. The foreign policy parts of the interview follow.
Q: Regarding the withdrawal from Lebanon, do you see an arrangement in the offing?
A: Up to now, the [Lebanese] position has not been positive. A solution must be found to the two components of the problem, as they were laid down in the government's basic policy guidelines: Security arrangements and the IDFs withdrawal from Lebanon.
Q: You mean, without arrangements there is no withdrawal?
A: There is no withdrawal. This is what is implied in the policy guidelines.
Q: Is there a possibility we will stay for an indefinite period?
A: 1, in any case, don't know how to limit it. I hope we will be able to withdraw the IDF from Lebanon in the near future, and ways have to be found to achieve this. But sometimes, to achieve this, it must be [made] clear to the other side that without security arrangements, the IDF cannot leave.
Q: Even if it continues for years?
A: Even if it continues for as long as it continues. For this reason, I hope that the elements interested in our departure will alter their position, and will pursue arrangements which will permit us to leave.
Q: But our soldiers are continuing to be wounded?
A: This is very bad. We feel the pain of every soldier and every family of those wounded, but this is a part of our situation, part of the regional situation. We live here. We have this situation: Palestinian terror and the complicated situation in Lebanon. This must be dealt with. By running away, we won't be dealing with it.
Q: A withdrawal from Lebanon is running away?
A: A withdrawal without any security arrangements is tantamount to running away, tantamount to abandoning Galilee. We must give the residents of the Galilee panhandle the security which they deserve.
Q: It is thought that Shimon Peres is trying to move towards far-reaching diplomatic plans, and the impression is that you are not excited by these initiatives.
A: I favor the government scrupulously adhering to the agreement it was founded on. There are things we disagree on; this is why we established joint guidelines for action, and I think the government must stick to them. No one can enforce their view upon anyone else. I don't think the government should deal with initiatives which are not acceptable to both the Likud and the Alignment.
Q: And if a new situation develops in Israel-Arab relations: For example, Hussein and the Palestinians are prepared to negotiate for peace in direct talks with Israel?
A: We spoke about this in the negotiations on establishing the government. In such a case, we will listen to the offers, and the government will decide how to respond to them. Should there be substantive differences and no agreed-upon position can be reached, then each of the two sides will decide how it will act, and the time will have come for ending joint action.
Q: Do you see such a possibility?
A: Theoretically, certainly.
Q: Realistically?
A: I don't see such an eventuality as realistic. This was our estimation prior to the establishment of the government, and that is why we thought we could establish the unity government.
Q: In recent weeks, Shimon Peres met with French President Mitterrand, Defense Minister Rabin held secret meetings in London, Ezer Weizman had meetings in Geneva, Labor Party Secretary Uzi Bar-Am met Rumanian President Ceausescu, and the Chairman of the Labor Party's Foreign Affairs Department, Israel Gat, had meetings with Egyptian personalities - while you, Mr. Shamir, were in Panama and Venezuela.
A: And in the United States. I don't know about any secret meetings. Political activity is not measured by the number of kilometers logged by various ministers in their travels.
Q: The impression is that a wide-ranging and intensive foreign policy, about which very little is known, is being conducted behind your back.
A: That's not true. There is no foreign policy conducted outside the foreign ministry.
Q: So how would you characterize the meetings I mentioned?
A: There were no secret meetings in London. Rabin had meetings with the British Defense Secretary, and in other places. It's customary for the prime minister to hold diplomatic meetings.
Q: You recently meet with U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz. Do you believe the U.S. will agree to increase its economic aid to Israel?
A: I hope so. The U.S. is ready to do so, but it wants to be convinced that the increased aid will bring about an economic recovery. Shultz himself is an economist and he is interested in the Israeli economy out of friendship. He himself has stated that Israel's economic recovery is in America's interest. They would like to see a strong Israel. He (Shultz) wants to be sure that the money America is invested in a good direction. They also hear opinions in Israel, even from economists [saying] don't give Israel money, because that way you keep them from really wanting to take the necessary steps. They do hear such advice.
Q: Won't Israel's opposition to setting up "Voice of America" transmitters here have a negative effect on U.S. aid?
A: There's no connection. The problem of the transmitters wasn't brought up for the first time today. There have been discussions for years. They know perfectly well what our reservations are. I don't see this as a serious problem. But our relations with America have reached a high level of cooperation in all spheres. The U.S. wants to see some positive response from our side. I don't think we have to take a position different [from theirs].
Q: That is to say, the transmitters should be set up?
A: A way should be found to meet their request.
Q: Don't you fear this could damage relations with the Soviet Union?
A: What has blocked the resumption of relations until now, if not the Soviets' determination not to do so?