On 20 June the United States suspended its dialogue with the PLO, claiming that organization has violated an undertaking dating back to December 1988 not to engage in acts of terror. Israel welcomed this development. But meanwhile, there were no contacts with Washington on the resumption of the peace process, although Foreign Minister Levy was invited to visit the U.S. and was considering a visit pending an improvement in his health. Mr. Shamir did reveal the contents of a long letter he sent President Bush in response to a letter from the president. Excerpts:
Q: Now that the "National camp" is in power by itself should the territories be annexed?
A: I never said that they should be. Besides, we made a commitment in the Camp David Accord not to take any unilateral step without negotiations.
Q: What about new settlements?
A: The Camp David Accord does not actually prohibit us from settling. And the demand that we refrain from settling is racist - Arabs can live here and we are prohibited from doing so? The settlements do not change the political status in Judea and Samaria at all.
Q: So why not establish new settlements?
A: Our efforts now are being concentrated in absorbing immigration.
Q: Why not settle immigrants in the territories?
A: We do not forbid them from settling in the territories, but neither do we direct them to the territories because of political constraints. We do not want to provide an excuse for a cessation of the immigration.
(...) I know that we have disappointed many people who expected much trouble from this government, trouble which fails to materialize. They said that the Shamir government would be a war government, and we still have not yet declared a single war. We do not have to fulfill the predictions of our opponents. We are not an extreme right-wing government.
Q: What are you?
A: We are a government with a majority in the Knesset, a mainstream government. Actually, we are the same government [as before] just without the Labor party. I am sorry we disappointed our opponents. (...) I am concerned because of the erosion [in relations] with the U.S. I did not expect the support in the U.S. to last forever. At the same time, no moods or policies last forever. There is now a large pro-Arab lobby there, and U.S. public opinion is influenced by anti-Israel media. It is possible that we did not do enough on this front. There is the impression that there are elements in the U.S. Administration which do not love us, but if they do not agree with us, this is of concern. Their threatening tone is not effective. Speeches and declarations against us are of no use. The State of Israel cannot act contrary to the way it perceives its interests.
Q: Are you seeking a formula which will prevent a split?
A: At this moment, there are no discussions with the U.S. First, we want to arrive at discussions. Because without them, it is impossible to reach an agreement. I imagine that at some stage, we will have discussions with them.
Q: They say you led them astray.
A: God forbid.
Q: Meanwhile, Europe has already imposed sanctions on us.
A: The disagreement with Europe has been going on for a long time, ever since the Venice Declaration of 1980. They are impatient because we are standing firm regarding that which pertains to us. There was once a British ambassador here who resigned because he claimed we were not taking orders from him. So what happened? Another came in his place.
Q: If you have not changed your positions, what was there to explain to Bush in your seven-page letter?
A: During the Lebanon War, the U.S. Administration presented this problem to us, that of a diminishing of Israel's prestige being a joint problem. They said then that they, too, were interested in improving public opinion regarding Israel and that it was necessary to do this together. I favor thorough discussions with the Administration, if the mutual purpose is to reach understanding between us. I explained to them in my letter what they must know, but they have different ideas. There is no alternative to our peace initiative to which I firmly adhere. It is a good plan, they have different interpretations regarding it. But we are more qualified to interpret our plan. For example, the disagreements regarding the PLO. There are those who think that without the PLO, nothing will move. I have nothing against a Palestinian wishing to consult with the PLO; the problem is that they want the PLO to run the whole affair. We have information that the PLO is not interested in peace. Because of this it continues with terrorism. It wants to destroy Israel. This is its philosophy. While we say that if less attention were paid to the PLO, independent Palestinian factors would emerge in the territories... I explained in the letter to Bush that the initiative's components must all be implemented at the same time. Not to view the arrangement with the Palestinians as a precondition to an arrangement with the Arab countries, nor the contrary. We should not deviate from the basis of the Camp David Accord, and we are interested that all sides accept it - this is the only realistic basis for an arrangement. Including deportees and East Jerusalem residents is a detail stemming from the desire to grant the PLO the role of "director" . What is important is that we arrive at a full understanding with the U.S. about where we are headed. It is must be clear to us what will be in each stage.
Q: Perhaps it would be better to forego the idea of elections?
A: I see no alternative. Because if there is no locally elected delegation, this means that the other side is the PLO.
Q: Is it a realistic [possibility] without the PLO?
A: We know from discussions with Palestinians that they are ready to accept our ideas but are afraid of the PLO. The international recognition which the PLO enjoys makes it difficult for them.
Q: Would you not seek another initiative?
A: No. This is the only realistic initiative to move ahead.
Q: How do you explain that you have not yet received a reply to your letter?
A: I do not expect an immediate answer. The Americans talk of meetings with us. They invited Levy, but his physician has his doubts.
Q: Is Levy's physician Dr. Shamir?
A: No, No. If he does not travel now, he will travel later. The Administration talks of meetings. All that will happen in the near future win be part of the response to the letter.
Q: You have always said that the intifada must be defeated. Is this realistic?
A: The intifada must reach its end. And it will end. They will reach the conclusion that this suffering does not pay and does not provide them with results and does not bring them closer to any objective. They have one alternative. Talks with us. And I am sure that they will arrive at this conclusion.
Q: Is this possible?
A: Yes, everything is possible. But there is no possibility of surrendering to violence. Surrender means the end of the State of Israel. You can see that they want to transfer the intifada across the Green Line border. They do not want to suffice with what they say they want.
Q: Can they be defeated by force?
A: There is no universal solution to this situation. There is no solution of a strong arm or surrender. The aim is to achieve quiet and to enable the [holding] of orderly discussions. Nothing will help them. They won't move us one millimeter by force. I have the feeling that this idea is accepted by Arabs in the territories.