Few days after forming his government, the prime minister addressed himself to the main topics on the national agenda. The first was the resumption of the peace process, especially in view of the urging of President Bush that progress be made. The second was the absorption of Soviet immigrants. The third was to deter attempts by the PLO and Arab states to halt the immigration. The fourth was to watch carefully developments in the Persian Gulf in view of the threats made by Sadam Hussein against Israel and Kuwait. Excerpts:
Q: How will this government act differently from the previous one vis-a-vis various issues, such as the intifada? Will there be new settlements in the territories? Will it strengthen the existing ones?
A: Generally speaking, the overall approach will be the same. As far as the intifada is concerned, there may be more emphasis on protecting the yishuvim in Judea and Samaria, because the population there is suffering. It's true that the army makes every possible effort to prevent this suffering but the new government may increase efforts in this direction. A wave of new settlements is not anticipated. Everything that was stated in the basic guidelines of the last national unity government will more or less apply to this government. The emphasis will be on the ... strengthening of the now-existing settlements. There must be some development; no settlements can mark time. There is no one who now believes that preference should be given to new settlements.
Q: There are those in Israel and in the region who say if there is no progress towards peace in the Middle East, the situation will deteriorate into war. Do you agree?
A: Such calls in the Arab world are cyclical. After an interval of relative quiet, voices of war and aggression again begin to be heard in the Arab world. This time it's Iraq, after it has become free of the burden of its war with Iran, in which it sees itself a victor. They have returned to their basic line, after being dormant for the eight years in which they were fighting Iran. In addition, particular attention must be paid to the fact that the aggressive intentions - their aggressive thoughts and intentions towards Israel - begin to surface in the Arab world as soon as they see cracks or breaches in the wall of friendship between Israel and the United States.
If one can characterize the 1980s in the Middle East as years of a certain measure of moderation, at least as far as tactics are concerned, it is because this period was characterized by strong progress in the friendship and cooperation between the two countries. It is only natural, therefore, that the Arabs convince themselves that the United States is backing Israel, and the liquidation of Israel is an absurd notion. They never say that this is because of Israel's power - they would never admit that - but because the strongest superpower in the world is behind Israel.
Having this viewpoint, when they see any sort of misunderstanding between Israel and the U.S., they try to exaggerate it and present it as a serious dispute, and that's when hopes spring to life that the U.S. will not support Israel. There's new hope for the success of their aggression against Israel. That's a fact. I would say, therefore, to international circles, mainly in the U.S., that giving emphasis to any distancing between Israel and the United States (even if it's for appearance's sake) almost automatically generates dangerous tension in the Middle East.
The Arabs, including the PLO as I said before, are also being encouraged by Europe's position which has with time, I would say, become both more hostile towards Israel's positions; and this encourages hostile trends as well. There are those in the Arab world who believe they can today take the liberty of attacking Israel, without any outside power intervening. I don't believe that this has any connection with what is called the peace process, because the extremism that I mentioned actually prevents any chance for peace negotiations between Israel and the Arab world to reach any realistic solution. The Arabs' predisposition to exaggerate also leads to mounting Arab demands. Nowadays, when anyone in the Arab world speaks about negotiations between Israel and the Arab countries, he no longer has in mind the Camp David Accords. What he's thinking about is a Palestinian state.
What Israel can and wants to do for promoting the peace process does not transcend the Camp David Accords. Till now, this framework has been the binding one. It obligates us and we believe it can be realized.
Q: You were talking about extremism in the Arab world. What about Jordan?
A: The same holds true. Jordan has its own specific problems, causing it to be ever weaker, and when the Jordanian government gets weaker, it seeks help from the Arab states, today *mainly from Iraq. Its arguments and requests for aid centre around fear or apprehensions about being attacked by Israel. Jordan's spokesmen say to Saudi Arabia and to Iraq that Jordan is on the front line in the fight with Israel. That is Jordan's argument for soliciting funds. That is why it should be helped. In order to reinforce this argument, it is necessary for Jordan to be more and more aggressive.
Q: What will Israel do if Jordan finds itself in a situation where its survival is at risk?
A: We have no aggressive intentions towards Jordan. We sometimes find it difficult to believe that all this talk in Jordan about Israel cherishing a dream of attacking Jordan and of liquidating the Kingdom of Jordan. We find it hard to believe that those who say so in Jordan believe what they say. Maybe, it's an obsession. Perhaps they are saying so to derive some benefit, as I said before, and on the basis of such talk obtain more aid. But they have absolutely no real reason to be afraid of Israel. Israel is far removed from nurturing any thoughts of attacking any Arab country, even the most hostile. There's no need to do that. We want to live in peace.
Q: A second source of concern in the Arab world is Gorbachev's warning last week, concerning the settlement of Soviet immigrants in the territories. I know you have often reiterated that there is no policy of settling immigrants in the territories and less than one per cent have chosen to live there. But if the life of up to a million Jews is in the balance, perhaps it would be best to say that those few people who settle in the territories will not be subsidized.
A: We know that this is only an excuse. To the contrary, some of the Arab countries are actually being frank when they state that it is immigration itself which creates the danger of war in the region. And why is this so? Is this because of the immigrants settling in the territories? We believe that if the Soviet Union is indeed interested in peace in the region, it should tell the Arab states: stop these artificial outcries, the hysteria that you generate by declaring that immigration leads to war. What kind of nonsense is that? Is the fact that a few hundred people are settling in the territories a cause for war? Why should we make such a declaration? No one would believe us in any event, even if we did make such a declaration. Everyone knows the truth of the matter. There is a Soviet mission in Israel. Any one of its members can check for himself whether Soviet Jews are going there. We can even facilitate their checking this out, if they are interested.
But the Arabs are indeed afraid of Jewish immigration. The question is: should the Soviet Union help them in their anti-immigration machinations? What is the Soviets' interest in fighting against immigration? It's just to the contrary. The Soviet Union's understanding, and assistance, can win it many friends here and abroad.
Q: So are you saying the Arabs are justified in their fear of immigration?
A: They're right from their point of view. Whoever seeks to get rid of the Jewish reality in the Middle East has grounds for being opposed to immigration, because this immigration is Zionism's true victory, and all that Israel signifies. I understand their fears. But immigration will not hurt them, nor harm their interests. Immigration will strengthen Israel, and a strong Israel will bring greater stability and security to the region. They have nothing to fear. But those who do not want a stronger Israel, and are toying with the illusion that they can liquidate Israel, it is they who are opposed to immigration. That is why I ask myself whether it is possible to talk about peace with those who are dead set against immigration. For us, opposing immigration is tantamount to opposing our very existence.
I am surprised that in Europe and in the U.S. [nothing is being done] to clarify this to the Arabs. They want to appear as "moderates." Where do you see Arab moderation? Their battle against immigration attests to unassailable extremism in their attitude toward Israel. Is this what you call moderation? Whoever is opposed to immigration now, is also opposed to having the previous immigrants live here. I don't understand why various groups abroad do not express their revulsion and categorically reject this inhuman, illiberal and undemocratic form of Arab warfare.
Where is the press that would be a champion of freedom and humanity? Where is the media in Europe and America? Why don't they launch a strong attack against this - what I would even term barbaric - warfare?
Q: Some claim that after this wave of immigration, Israel won't be interested in making peace with the Palestinians.
A: Today everyone knows that a weak Israel won't come to any settlement with them. Only a strong and confident Israel will be able to make peace agreements with the Arab world.
Q: Why did you halt the peace process in March? Were you opposed to the Baker-Arens formulation for the participation of a Palestinian delegation in the Cairo talks? Did you suspect there would be covert PLO participation?
A: What is the peace process? If we're talking about implementing our peace initiative of May 14, 1989, then we should be consulted. It's not that I'm zealous about our copyright. We, the formulators of this plan, wish to take a course in which we believe. I would say, therefore, this plan - this initiative - is a good one. However, there must be ongoing and serious consultations between us and the U.S. regarding its implementation. These consultations need not include each individual step, but there must be general agreement on a series of steps. Only such mutual understanding can prepare the ground for cooperation. I understand America's desire to help us implement the peace initiative. I am grateful to them and at the same time I understand that they are interested in maintaining good relations with the Arab world. But they can't take these steps [the Cairo talks] without having a full understanding with Israel.
Q: But aren't you ignoring the fact that from September 1989 to March 1990 there were intensive, daily consultations between the U.S. and Israel on an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue in Cairo?
A: This process is so complex and difficult, that one sometimes must stop and take time out together to think how to proceed. For as you know negotiations for resolving territorial conflicts, or others, between various countries take years. You can take examples from the whole world. It can't go along at what is known as an "American tempo." Here we sometimes have to fortify ourselves with patience.
Q: President George Bush said last week that he wants to get an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue rolling. Don't you want to mend your relations with him and his administration? If so, what do you propose to tell him?
A: I am interested in doing so, I have something to say, and I certainly do want to advance the peace process. But I am interested in reaching an agreement. After all, I have been telling the Americans not to forget that it's our initiative. But I want them to understand our intentions, and I want to make it clear that a dialogue between Israel and Arab representatives of Judea, Samaria and Gaza cannot succeed without prior agreement between the parties that the goal is to advance within the framework of the Camp David Accords - that is, autonomy.
There's nothing to discuss with those among the Palestinian-Arabs who are opposed to autonomy. There's nothing to discuss with them. That's to begin with. Second, we must take into consideration that Israel will not talk with the PLO, because among other reasons they are opposed to autonomy and the Camp David agreement...