In this far-ranging interview, the prime minister was still in the stage of outlining his plans in both the economic and foreign policy spheres. He reiterated a statement made by Mr. Rabin to the effect that the I.D.F. would be withdrawn from Lebanon in a matter of months, saying this will be accomplished within six to nine months. He also expressed his hope that King Hussein would respond to his call and negotiate with Israel without any prior conditions. Excerpts:
Q: When will we see the light at the end of the tunnel, economically? Is it a matter of years? Months?
A: It's hard to predict, but if things go smoothly, I hope that we will get out of this difficult situation with a year.
Q: What is the economic plan, or the general guidelines, that you are preparing with the Finance Ministry? What economic policy do you see for the government during the time you are in office?
A: ... Today's economy is founded on information - what's called artificial intelligence - sophistication, education, science and technology. In Israel, there have been considerable developments in this field, and we are already preparing a system of investments and fund-raising, to broaden the framework and scope of science-based industry in Israel, especially in the development town areas. It's not true that we're putting this off for a year - we've already begun to establish and plan systems for raising capital and planning industry to renew Israel's growth. I don't see the Israeli vehicle of state as a vehicle that has only brakes, but rather as also having an engine and the power to move ahead...
The Israeli people for many years maintained an economy built on growth. These are the same people, the same citizens. I don't accept that we must live only in a manner totally lacking in judgment and accountability. For decades, almost three decades, Israel was the fastest-growing economy in the world, with a rate of growth between 9- 10% annually. That is to say, the same government, and the same citizens, can definitely maintain a different economy if we change direction...
Q: Regarding U.S. aid - what is the scope of the aid? What do you plan on asking the U.S. administration for at this time, in the economic sphere?
A: First of all, I plan on telling the U.S. administration that we are starting at home, and not outside, and a number of decisions we've already reached prove this. Don't forget that this government is in its infancy - two weeks old - we haven't had much time... In two weeks it's very difficult to take all the necessary steps simultaneously... Essentially, the aid during the coming U.S. fiscal year has already been determined. It's possible this will be in the form of interim funding, but that isn't our main objective. I'm not going like a beggar. I'm also not going to ask for another $100 million or $200 million, that would be a mistake. I'm going to discuss a more general, more basic view regarding the future of the Israeli economy - and the U.S. is very interested in Israel's economic situation, out of friendship, not hostility. It wants its most important friend in the Middle East to be strong economically.
Q: Regarding Lebanon, can you be specific regarding withdrawal of I.D.F. forces? The Defense Minister spoke of six or nine months.
A: From the time a decision is made, I think this is a reasonable time for implementing the plan.
Q: When will a decision be made?
A: It's hard to tell you, but it's a matter of weeks - not more than that... We don't intend on running Lebanon indirectly. We are interested in P.L.O. forces not returning to southern Lebanon. That is our problem. We have no intention of interfering with, or changing, or determining the Lebanese way of life. The question is whether, in a zone 40 kilometers north of Israel, there will be a military force which will either deter or give warning of the entrance of terrorists into this zone. That is our real interest. And I don't see any substitute for the S.L.A. forces in this case.
Q: What about U.N.I.F.I.L.?
A: The U.N.I.F.I.L. forces, I think, will be located north of them, although formally, U.N.I.F.I.L. has outposts in the south as well. This is how it was in the past and this is apparently how it will be in the future. But preventing terrorist infiltration into southern Lebanon isn't only an S.L.A. issue; the I.D.F. will be overseeing things, and will keep an eye out to make sure that this doesn't happen.
Q: Regarding Egypt - will you initiate any meeting with President Mubarak?
A: It's not inconceivable, once I'm convinced that the meeting will bear fruit because if the object of the meeting is just to meet, then it's likely to lead to disappointment. In my opinion, we must plan that the meeting be in the framework of opening a new chapter that will have continuity. And for this reason, it will again take some time to clarify - I'm sorry, but not everything can be done in two weeks.
Q: But is there any chance of initiating such a meeting before the I.D.F. pulls out of Lebanon? This is one of the Egyptian conditions for even returning their ambassador to Tel Aviv.
A: First of all, I don't accept this condition. The I.D.F. won't withdraw from Lebanon because of an Egyptian demand. The I.D.F. will withdraw from Lebanon for Israeli, not Egyptian reasons; I'm not prepared to link these two issues. Our relationship with Egypt must be fundamentally bilateral: We don't dictate to Egypt; Egypt won't dictate to us. But I assume that when Egypt learns about what is in any case our policy in Lebanon, it will not present any further requests.
Q: The peace initiative with Jordan was one of the main issues in the negotiations towards forming this government. So far it appears that your overture to Jordan hasn't won any response?
A: What did you expect - that within 8 days we would get a response?
Q: I don't know. What did you expect?
A: I expected one thing that has already been achieved: To present Israel in the correct light, that it is the initiator, it is the one that is calling on Jordan. If Jordan responds, fine; but again, that's Jordan's problem. But from the standpoint of presenting Israel, this goal at least was partially achieved, and I plan to continue doing this. There is no reason in the world why Israel shouldn't appear as the one who is initiating peace processes, and not as the one who appears to be being pressed to agree to peace.
Q: What can you offer King Hussein today? You're barred from offering a territorial compromise by the coalition agreement. Peace for peace, the Likud formula?
A: No, it's not like that. In the guidelines it says clearly that every proposal by Jordan will be discussed by the Israeli government. If the king shows a desire for peace, the government will meet and will put forth peace offers of its own. The problem ultimately isn't the nature of the solution, but rather the existence of a solution that won't damage Israel's security on the one hand, and won't undermine its Jewish and democratic character on the other... We've seen more than once in history how, when two sides are in dispute and each of them has a plan for ending the dispute, and they meet and hold negotiations, and the negotiations go well, it has never happened that one side accepted the other side's view. What really happened was that a third solution or an interim solution was born which no one had foreseen, and which is the one which brought the two nations to peace. That can also happen here.
Q: Do you have any ideas in this regard?
A: I want to remind you that there was a similar situation with Egypt, although the situation with Jordan is different. Sadat said: The Khartoum formula. No negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no peace with Israel. He said that he wouldn't come to the negotiating table so long as one Israeli soldier was in Sinai On the other hand, the Likud spoke of defensible borders in Sinai, with the intention of a border cutting Sinai in the middle. For this reason, one shouldn't get too excited about what is being said, because if a person were born only with ears, it's doubtful whether there would have been any progress in the world.
Q: What are the other goals that you have set yourself while you're prime minister?
A: There are several other issues... We have to look very carefully at the future of the Red Sea, to guarantee the security of its seaways, and perhaps also to turn it into an area of international cooperation of the neighboring states. In the more distant future, one must think about the development of the Middle East on a regional scope, and not only a national scope.
Q: So if you speak of the future of the Red Sea, you're speaking of talks with nations along its shores?
A: Perhaps. Again, I don't know if these will be direct or indirect talks. Every country has its own problems: Take Jordan, for example. Jordan is very interested in having an oil pipeline on its territory from Iraq to the Red Sea. Without a direct or indirect Israeli promise regarding the security of the outlet of this pipeline in Aqaba, it can hardly carry this out. Take Saudi Arabia: It is shipping its oil exports from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. So I believe that all the nations have an-interest in safeguarding the future of this sea along whose shores we live...
Q: There have been charges that your visit to the U.S. at this time could be interpreted as interference in the U.S. electoral campaign. Could you comment?
A: First of all, there are always elections in the U.S. -Every two years there are elections. Secondly, I'm also going to see Mondale and Mrs. Ferraro. But I'm not going to America because there are elections, or at a time when there are elections.... Otherwise, we would have to start discussion with the U.S. only after the elections, that is to say, in January or February. But there are some things which are urgent and can't be put off to a later date.
Q: Is there anything you can achieve now which might be more difficult later on?
A: Possibly. But what I'm really going for is for more basic discussions to create, again, the fundamental relationship between our two governments.