By late June the United States has not yet succeeded in changing Syria's attitude to direct negotiations with Israel. It continued to insist that Israel must freeze settlements in the areas and that its interpretation of Resolution 242 meant withdrawal on all fronts. Mr. Shamir rejected this interpretation and said that the Camp David Accords, the basis for the peace process, do not mention withdrawal. But the interpretation of 242 should be part of the negotiations. He was opposed to any Israeli withdrawal and to the presence of a UN observer in a conference. He was still opposed to the concept of an international conference. Excerpts:
Q: Is Chief of Staff Ehud Barak capable of preparing the IDF for the next war, if and when it happens?
A: I am convinced of this.
Q: When, if at all, do you think the next war will be?
A: I hope there won't be one.
Q: But you must have an educated assessment for this possibility.
A: There are assorted estimations and theories, but I don't think I can go into details about them in our conversation.
Q: IDF Spokesman Nachman Shai has recently estimated that we can be assured of a year and a half gap in military action. In your opinion, is that a realistic estimate?
A: I would refrain from setting time tables and finite periods for this subject. The subject is too serious [for that].
Q: Are Syrian intentions today turned to peace or war?
A: Syria's policy today is exactly the same policy that it has adhered to for many years now.
Q: How, then, in your opinion, can it be extricated from the cycle of war and brought to the negotiating people?
A: I don't believe that a country's policy can be changed by the influence of outside elements, unless they cause a radical change in that country's arrayal of its forces during a war. Israel cannot extricate Syria from its hostility against it by normal methods.
Q: Are you trying to hint that it's desirable that Israel go to war against Syria in order to change the internal arrayal of forces there?
A: No, I am not saying that. But if someone does want Israel to decide to end Syrian hostility towards it, then, in so doing, he may be suggesting military action against Syria. I don't support this.
Q: And is it impossible to bring Syria to the negotiating table by peaceful means? Won't an Israeli declaration that U.N. resolution 242 also applies to the Golan Heights bring the Syrians closer to the negotiating table?
A: Resolution 242 speaks of negotiating withdrawal from unspecified territories.
Q: The American interpretation of this resolution includes withdrawal from territories in Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights.
A: We have another interpretation of this resolution. Our interpretation appears in the Camp David Accords which were signed some time after resolution 242 was adopted. The Camp David Accords do not speak of withdrawal.
Q: Wouldn't it have been right for Israel to accept the American interpretation, thereby bringing the Jordanians and the Syrians to the negotiating table?
A: We are not debating these issues with the Americans. We will discuss them during negotiations which will indeed be based on resolution 242.
Q: Aren't you worried about the impatience, sometimes worse more than that, displayed by the Americans towards the political positions of the Israeli government?
A: Peace negotiations are a basic and complex thing that take a long time. Negotiations cannot be conducted impatiently. We are now talking only about the initial stages of negotiations, and once it begins it will go on for a long time. Therefore, we have to be equipped from the beginning with lots of patience.
Q: That's not what the Americans think and feel. And that's where the sense of deterioration in Israel-U.S. deterioration is.
A: That is not true. I see no signs of impatience and there is no deterioration in Israel-U.S. relations.
Q: Why are you hesitant to say yes to a non-continuing international peace conference with the presence of a U.N. observer, without the U.N. having the status of judge or arbiter.
A: I am not in favor of any kind of international conference. We have no need for an international conference. I am in favor of direct negotiations between us and each one of our neighbors. For that we do not need any conference or foreign intervention, including the U.N.
Q: Are you thereby retreating from your earlier agreement to U.S. Secretary of State James Baker's initiative with regard to convening a conference?
A: No. All in all, only once, in 1987, did we agree to a one-time gathering of all the heads of Middle East states to be followed by direct negotiations between us and each of the Arab states. And we stand by this today as well.
Q: Can it be understood from here that if the U.N. invites us today to participate in the conference it is trying to convene, Israel will not attend?
A: We will discuss that when we receive an invitation.
Q: But you have already determined that you will not agree to such a conference.
A: We do not need a conference. We oppose it now just as we did in the past. We see it as evading direct negotiations. It opposes our position and conforms to the Arabs' stance.
Q: When you say that the U.S. is not being short-tempered with us, does that also apply to the settlement issue?
A: The Americans are opposed to Jewish settlement in disputed areas, but this cannot be seen as short-temperedness. It is a dispute.
Q: And in light of this dispute, is it worth continuing the settlements which the U.S. sees as a provocation and endanger the American loan guarantees for immigrant absorption?
A: There is no need for provocation. This word has to be taken out of the dictionary and from the rules of behavior. When there are disagreements, they must be dealt with.
Q: To put it more directly: are you prepared to give up the American guarantees in exchange for the continuing momentum of settlement [building]?
A: I do not know who came up with the idea of guarantees. It seems to me that it in fact stems from American sources. Of course, we need a lot of assistance for immigrant absorption from whoever can provide us with such aid. Europe must also participate in this. It is a top priority humanitarian undertaking. It is an obligation and privilege for any civilized country to participate in.
Q: Will new immigrants be directed to settlements?
A: The immigrants will not be directed to disputed settlements because we committed ourselves not to.
Q: Doesn't the continued construction in Judea, Samaria and Gaza move King Hussein further away from the negotiating table?
A: Each of the two countries has clear positions and each knows the positions of the other.
Q: There were signs that King Hussein was willing to meet with you and join the negotiations. This is no longer talked about. Why?
A: Even when it is talked about, it does not necessarily mean that there will be a meeting tomorrow. There is no connection between what is said and what is not said.
Q: In the past, you met secretly with King Hussein. What is missing in order for these meetings to take place in the light of day?
A: I have had many meetings in my life, but I have not heard of any meetings of mine with King Hussein.
Q: Maybe you didn't hear about them, but you participated in them.
A: I did not attend such meetings.
Q: Shimon Peres thinks that you are today looking for the Jordanian option, the same option or political process which you vehemently rejected in the past.
A: There is no connection between what Shimon Peres wanted and wants today and what I want. It is not a question of a Jordanian option. We want negotiations - which will lead to peace - with any Arab state.
Q: Is Peres's proposed confederation of Gaza, Jordan and parts of Judea and Samaria a possibility for you?
A: We are not asking ourselves to whom should we transfer Judea and Samaria. It does not have to be transferred to anyone. These are lands which are part of the Land of Israel.
Q: Is it a coincidence that you did not mention Gaza?
A: I am willing to add Gaza to this as well.
Q: Why is Gaza so important to you?
A: It can be said, that we do not really need any place in the State of Israel. Dozens or hundreds of places where we currently have no foothold can be counted, but if a nation feels that this is its homeland and its territory, it must guard them.
Q: Why do you not turn to the people with a [proposal] to change the electoral system in order to try and get massive support for your policies?
A: The people are turned to on election day. We are indeed moving close to elections.
Q: On the day determined by law, or prior to that?
A: I prefer to hold the elections on the day determined by law. It is good for the country.
Q: Can it be implied from here that you reject the currently circulating proposals to move up the elections?
A: I do not think there is room for moving up the elections. Perhaps at a certain point, I might change my opinion, but then too, the time between the legally determined date and the actual elections will be as short as possible.
Q: How do you respond to Shimon Peres's statement that "Yitzhak Shamir has lost control"?
A: I respond to that exactly as I do to anything Peres has to say about Shamir.
Q: Are you set to head the Likud into the next elections as well?
A: No, no, I have not decided that. It depends, first of all, on the Likud's decision, and only afterwards, if there is a need for it, will I decide. (...)
Q: Are there people within your party - such as Sharon, Levy, Lahat and Landau who challenge your leadership?
A: Some of them do not challenge my leadership and the others - do not interest me. (...)