On the eve of the Arens-Shevardnadze meeting in Cairo, the prime minister did not see a major breakthrough in the relations between Israel and the Soviet Union or in the peace process. He returned to his idea that the two super powers convene a meeting of the heads of the Middle Eastern countries parties to the conflict which will lead to direct negotiations. If this idea were to be presented now, he would support it wholeheartedly. He felt that the main objective now as to initiate negotiations. Text:
Q: Do you expect any breakthrough as a result of the Arens-Shevardnadze meeting in Cairo?
A: It is difficult to see in each and every meeting a breakthrough. I usually regard the meetings, discussions, between Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze and our foreign minister as well as those between our foreign minister with President Mubarak - I perceive them as positive, developments which will allow our foreign minister to present Israel's position and to hear the USSR and Egypt's stands.
Q: Moscow has been hinting that it is prepared to forego its demands for an international conference as a precondition for renewing relations with Israel. Have these hints reached your office as well?
A: This is not precisely what I have learned. We will be better informed once we have been briefed by the foreign minister.
Q: Did you have any second thoughts about agreeing to hold the meeting in Cairo; did you considering asking Shevardnadze to hold the meeting in Israel?
A: There was no reason to make such a request, as it was quite obvious what his answer would be.
Q: What are we going to tell the Soviet foreign minister?
A: I don't wish to anticipate our foreign minister. He will know what to say to him. He will present Israel's positions. Israel is interested in peace, while at the same time maintaining its security and protecting its interests. He will present our demands relating to security, and the interests and national aspirations of the Jewish people in Israel.
Q: You have said in the past that you would be prepared to allow both the USSR and the U.S. to play a role in a "mini"-international conference - or "mini" - international umbrella. Is that the correct wording?.
A: Not exactly, but at the time the U.S. secretary of state had the idea of convening a meeting in Washington of all the heads of the Middle East countries - all the partners to the conflict - [under the aegis] of the USSR and the USA. There it would be proposed that we - Israel and the Arab countries - launch direct negotiations. I, of course, agreed to this initiative, and if it were still possible - thanks to such initiative - to start direct negotiation between ourselves and the Arabs, I would support this wholeheartedly. I think that the Middle East's main objective at the moment should be to initiate negotiations.
Q: And do you agree to the notion of preliminary talks - alternately chaired by the USSR and the.U.S. - as a prelude to negotiations?
A: We didn't discuss the matter. There was no mention of chairmen. There was only talk of having the Soviet and American leaders invite the parties to a meeting at which the heads of the two superpowers would recommend that the two sides launch negotiations. Following this, direct negotiations would start. In direct negotiations of this nature there is no need for chairmen, etc. But, of course, it would be possible to discuss various particulars. These were not mentioned in the past.
Q: What is your reaction to the recent meetings between leading Labor party members and people identified with the PLO in the territories?
A: In the meantime far more important events have occurred in Israel. Firstly, yesterday's murder at the height of the Sabbath. This, more than anything else, shows the people in Israel the real dangers facing us. Meanwhile, we see that the PLO and their supporters speak with knives. And all the running around and courting them don't change the situation - certainly not for the better.
Q: Do you intend to instruct the Labor Party heads to enjoin their members from meeting with Husseini?
A: From a legal point of view, I am not permitted to instruct this or that person not to meet with certain people who live in Israel - in Jerusalem, in this case - but I think that as far as the political and national aspects are concerned, these acts are harmful.
Q: Do you yourself have any plans to meet with Faisal el-Husseini?
A: If we find it necessary, on the basis of political or security considerations to meet with a particular person, the Government can initiate such meetings with any one. This, however, shouldn't assume the dimensions of some kind of national sport.
Q: But you wouldn't categorically reject such a meeting?
A: Categorically? A country meets with all sorts of people and representatives from around the world, according to its interests. But again, negotiations with foreign or hostile elements are never given to the decisions or considerations of rank and file citizens.
Q: One of the purposes of this radio program is to try to confirm statements made in the past by public figures. With your permission, I would like to play back some of your statements, and see whether you would be prepared to reconfirm them now:
"We, members of the national movement, must inculcate into every youth and every Jew the simple, elementary, but profound recognition that the Land of Israel is ours. Why? Just like that! Without having to give reasons. Without explanations. Just like that!
Q: There's a lot of pathos here.
A: Certainly, I maintain that such statements are often, and rightly so, voiced with great emotion. This is because it is emotions that govern the basic, fundamental, and national postures of every nation. Logic then adds on the justification - determines tactical and other moves used in achieving the objectives. But I do, indeed, identify with every word I said.
Q: You're certainly aware that people like Shevardnadze and even President George Bush might not buy such statements.
A: They'll buy statements that I will try to adapt to a climate of political talks. However, what is good for public gatherings need not necessarily be appropriate within a framework of diplomatic talks. As pertains to content, I definitely back everything I said. I will neither deny nor hide the fact that this is what I think and believe, and that this is my conviction.
Q: But isn't it conceivable that they might say: "Yes, you are right, Eretz Israel belongs to Israel as well."
Q: I don't need anyone's approval that Eretz Yisrael is ours. This, in my opinion, is the fundamental creed of every real Jew, to whit: Eretz Israel is the land of the Jewish people.
Q: Here is a chance to direct a few words to the Israeli press, is there anything you want to say from this podium?
A: Every day there is one newspaper or another, this voice or that in the electronic media. Sometimes what they say is more acceptable - other times less so. I don't usually excel in levelling constant criticism against everything I read or hear. But there's no doubt that we must demand of the media - particularly in light of the situation in which we find ourselves - that it evince national responsibility. There are matters which it would be wise not to publicize - not many, few, but such matters do exist. And sometimes we specifically publicize such matters. There are also matters which are unnecessarily emphasized. But mainly, I would like to ask all the communications media to be extremely accurate - to be extremely accurate in reporting the facts, and not to inflate or color the report according to the political considerations of the reporter. This, I believe, is the main point - if our media will prove to be credible to the utmost and supply accurate reports, it will certainly be to their credit and honor.