On 22 March, speaking in a press conference, President Reagan said that the U.S. would be willing to meet with a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation as long as it did not include PLO members. This was the first time the U.S. said that talks could be held without Israel. Although the State Department attempted to explain that the President meant that the U.S. Jordanian-Palestinian talks would be prelude to talk with Israel, this did not ameliorate the growing Israeli fears. It was also announced that Assistant Secretary of State Murphy would travel again to the Middle East to explore in depth the next phases of a possible peace process. Mr. Shamir answered questions dealing with Israel-U.S. differences. He also said that Secretary of State Shultz was due in May. Text:
Q: What is your reaction to the report that the U.S. does not necessarily rule out a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation without PLO participation?
A: We are currently clarifying the meaning and implications of these remarks, and whether they will have any practical results. In all events, we do not think that such meetings or talks can further the peace issue in our region.
Q: Why?
A: Because peace talks must be conducted with Israel, and not between the Arab's and the United States.
Q: Don't you view this U.S. stand as constituting something of a tendency towards the position of the Arab states?
A: I don't think so. I think the U.S. understands Israel's position. I don't think the U.S. will confront us with faits accomplis which will conflict with our point of view. At all events, we will know in the near future: The president's envoy will soon be arriving, and in May the secretary of state is scheduled to visit. In addition, there are constant contacts in Washington between our embassy and the U.S. administration. We are well-versed in all matters relating to the Middle East.
Q: Are we in coordination with the U.S. on these subjects?
A: We are in constant contact, and to this day I see no tactical differences between us and the U.S. government, though we must take into account that there could be differences in the future - after all, differences of opinion are normal even between the closes of friends and between countries that cooperate to the extent that Israel and the U.S. do.
Q: There are reports that we will be out of Lebanon by mid-May. What is your comment on this?
A: I don't yet know of any precise timetable which was determined by the government, or by any other government-related institution. There is a cabinet decision on the removal of the IDF from Lebanon, and this decision is being implemented. The pace is determined solely by military considerations.
Q: What about security arrangements?
A: Security arrangements for Galilee is the most important problem which we face today and for which we will have to come up with an answer by the time the IDF reaches the border. This is a problem that is still open, and I very much hope that the IDF will come up with the right answers.
Q: Does your previous answer imply that the date we heard about today, of mid-May as the final withdrawal date, is incorrect?
A: I won't say that. I simply don't know of any cabinet decision regarding the date. It's possible that the military circles involved have mentioned something about that date. At all events, the pace and date of the withdrawal will be determined mainly by the IDF.