In this interview Mr. Shamir denied that he had backed down on an understanding with Mr. Peres regarding Taba. He said that the Likud wanted to discuss with Egypt many issues which were problematic and not only Taba. But above all, he felt that Israel was facing a serious problem with the United States. Assistant Secretary of State Murphy was about to start another shuttle round of talks and Israel feared it could result in a U.S. -Jordanian-PLO dialogue, to which it objected strenuously. On this issue, he stressed, the entire government was united. Text:
Q: The prime minister's office has been accusing you of backing down from a package deal with the prime minister concerning Taba.
A: First of all, may I say that I'm astounded that we're speaking about Taba this morning, after having received the news that the U.S. government has decided despite all to send Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy to the Middle East to make this dangerous move, which may lead to his meeting with a Jordanian-PLO delegation - an incomparably grave step which could have serious consequences for peace and security in the region. The U.S. government has decided to do this in spite of the Israeli government's explicit opposition, and I think that at such a time, Israel should be mobilizing all its political might to thwart this move and stave off its inherent dangers.
Q: Well be discussing the Murphy trip later on, but right now we're talking about Taba, and I understand there's a dispute between you and the prime minister. How do you propose to deal with this? Will you say, "let's deal with Murphy and put Taba aside?"
A: I only wanted to say that the Taba issue is dwarfed by the danger inherent in this move with which we must grapple now. But on Taba, I will elaborate not my own position, but the Likud position as stated in the inner cabinet, i.e. in the government. First, it's not true that I consented to some deal and then backed down. It's not so. When our delegation went to Cairo to discuss Taba, I said it was unthinkable that we should discuss only one of the controversial issues with Egypt - an issue in which Egypt in particular is interested - without dealing with the entire set of issues. That's how it was, and the delegation did so act, but this should not be viewed as some 'package deal.' I am utterly against Egypt's being able to make the fulfillment of its commitments under the peace treaty contingent on one issue which it sees as important and on which it is pressing Israel to adopt its position.
Q: But are you aware that Prime Minister Peres has decided that the Taba issue is to be placed on the cabinet agenda? He is also insisting that the issue be brought for cabinet decision. Will you also oppose the issue's being brought for cabinet decision?
A: I haven't yet been informed that the prime minister intends to bring this issue up for cabinet debate; that runs contrary to the agreement between the Likud and the Alignment on which this government is founded. But first, let me explain the stance on Taba.
Q: But are you aware that the Taba issue could lead to the break-up of the national unity government? We already see this in statements by Alignment leaders, with Minister Shahal saying, "Yitzhak Shamir doesn't understand the peace accord with Egypt," along with other ministers who may be speaking at the behest of the prime minister on this issue.
A: Ive heard all these statements, which are totally lacking in logic or truth. My position, the Likud's position, on the Taba issue is completely in accord with what is written and agreed in the peace treaty with Egypt. It is no accident that the peace treaty states, in the section dealing with this type of issue - as well as in the special agreement we signed with Egypt on 25 April 1982 - that if issues of this type should be in dispute, they are to be settled via negotiations, conciliation, or arbitration, in that order. We are insisting on precisely what we wrote in that agreement and what is written in the peace treaty. If someone argues that the peace treaty requires us to accept the Egyptian position of all things, then this is either misunderstanding or ignorance of what is written in the peace treaty and in the agreement - or else a foolish attempt to take a public stand on the side of the Egyptian government, against the explicit public stand of the Israeli government.
Q: Moving on to Richard Murphy's tour of the Middle East - we already heard your deep-seated reservations regarding the U.S. stance on this issue. What are you planning to say to Mr. Murphy when you meet with him?
A: I've stated my position any number of times to U.S. representatives. But first it should be clear that this is not just my own position. When the defense minister last visited Washington, he spoke as clearly and explicitly as possible against this American move. The prime minister too has spoken out several times against this move. This is thus the official position of the Israeli government, which is opposed to the meeting between a U.S. official and a Jordanian-PLO delegation - a meeting whose very occurrence constituted recognition of the PLO, which in fact is that organization's aim in coming to the meeting. I was astounded to hear the announcement or remark by some U.S. official that "that's Shamir's position only." That's not true. It's the Israeli government's position, and I'm certain that it's also the position of the Israeli people - that we should resist this with all our might.
Q: But perhaps the senior official was referring to Prime Minister Peres' already having stated several times that in his view, there are representatives, at least two of the Palestinian representatives, who are acceptable to him and with whom we may talk. Why, in fact, should we not seek a dialogue with representatives from the territories who will be part of this delegation?
A: This has no bearing on Israel's stance against American talks with a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation - and when I say Palestinian, in this case I'm referring to PLO representatives. True, the prime minister did once talk about some participation by Palestinians, but at the same time he stated straight out that the Israeli government was opposed to this move. When Israel's ambassador in Washington met with U.S. Secretary of State Shultz yesterday and presented our reasons for opposing this move, Shultz accepted these reasons as the official stance of the Israeli government and didn't make any attempt to say it was only the position of the foreign minister.