In early April Yasser Arafat was a passenger in a plane that crashed in North Africa. But he survived. This issue was discussed by the prime minister. However the bulk of the interview dealt with what was seen as serious deterioration in Israel-America relations and what the Likud considered American interference in the election campaign by withholding the loan guarantees and making derogatory statements about the prime minister. Mr. Shamir affirmed that he will not freeze settlement activity. He also admitted that for the first time, the U.S. was linking economic aid to settlement halt. He cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions on the state of the relations with the U.S. citing many previous occasions in which relations were very strained. Excerpts:
Q: Now that is is clear that Yasser Arafat has survived, let me ask you - is Yasser Arafat a target of ours? In other, words, do we want to liquidate him, or considering who might succeed him, is Arafat, whom we are used to, the lesser of two evils?
A: I do not think we have to deliberate today, of all days, on this specific issue. In any case, according to the information we have received until now, as far as we are concerned, nothing has changed. There was a certain amount of excitement in the Arab world, we hope the day will come when many Arabs will understand that their salvation will not come from Arafat.
Q: You have not answered the question if he is a target of ours?
A: You are right, I did not answer and I do not intend to.
Q: Regarding Eretz Israel, you have received more than a little criticism from the American administration, either directly or indirectly, from administration officials, from George Bush, James Baker, and their people, that you have violated agreements concerning the settlements. They claim they do not believe you, because you have broken promises to them on these matters.
A: Can you quote them?
Q: Not this minute from memory.
A: No one has ever said that. Perhaps there was an impression that someone, at one time, did not understand my remarks. I have never in my life promised that settlement activity in the land of Israel would cease in any part of the land of Israel. And that is fact.
Q: Be that as it may, due to this and perhaps also due to other matters, there is a low ebb in our relationship with the U.S. that commentators say is without precedent.
A: This is not so. Never. The low ebb is not because someone said something or someone did not understand ...
Q: Because of the facts.
A: There are certain differences of opinion. And if you take into account everything that has been said recently - the interview with Baker, Quayle's speech yesterday, all sorts of announcements and declarations, it is very difficult to talk about a unparalleled low ebb when things of this sort are said precisely at this time. It is true, there are differences of opinion. I regret these differences of opinion, but these differences of opinion, when compared to settlement and when compared to the issue of territory in the conflict between us and the Arabs, these differences of opinion have always existed, throughout all the periods of good relations between us and the U.S. And they did not ruin the network of friendly relations. And even now they do not ruin them. So says Bush and so says Baker and so said Quayle yesterday, and you do not believe them.
Q: These are words, what about deeds, what about the damage done to defense industries, these awful investigations, the threat of sanctions? The loan guarantees ...
A: Where is there any damage to the defense industries? There are occasionally misunderstandings on all sorts of subjects, but when there are friendly relations which are fundamental and basic, one also overcomes differences of opinion. There have been differences of opinion during the best periods of the Reagan administration. There were things of this sort. We surmounted them, and afterwards very good things came of it as reflected in the cooperation between us and the U.S. There are differences of opinion. There are differences of opinion between the U.S. and its other allies, including members of NATO. But the fact that a sturdy base exists to the friendship and cooperation, and the sharing of values and of interests, this fact allows both sides the ability to overcome differences of opinion that crop up and appear on occasion.
Q: Even so, Mr. Prime Minister, even when there are differences of opinion, on the issue of settlement in Judea and Samaria, which has existed since 19[67], there was never a time when there was explicit conditioning by the U.S., that they are not willing to grant us aid except if we cease the settlements ...
A: This is a precedent, that is true. I hope that one day this will also be clarified and I hope this also will dissolve. We have recently heard the Senate resolution voted for by 99 senators, with I against...
Q: A declarative statement that has no significance.
A: But it is very meaningful and it contains a principle that every member of the U.S. Senate - the most important parliamentary body in the democratic world - that all members of the Senate, excepting one, said they were in favor of guarantees, without political linkage, they said the U.S. has to aid Israel in its immigration operations. They decided, all those who initiated the proposal of this resolution, that this is not the end. The U.S., in the final analysis, will continue to aid Israel in absorbing immigration.
Q: But how will this affair be concluded? You say that in the final analysis we will receive the guarantees. But the Americans say - either guarantees or settlements, and you say - we will continue to settle in all parts of the Land of Israel. There's no room here for compromise.
A: Why? There is no doubt that we will continue [to settle]. No one can take away our right to do so. And we continue to settle. Today, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow. That is our way. And I do not believe any government in Israel would commit itself to stop settling in any part of Israel due to pressure and dictates. All the same, the relationship did not end. The network of friendly relations continues.
Q: But we will not receive the guarantees under these conditions.
A: At this minute we will not obtain them. I do not know if we will get them in another half a year or a year. Do you think we will not need them? We will need them. I am not giving up.
Q: The issue of the Patriot affair is not over either. You said that the affair was over, or that you estimate that the affair to be over, (...) yet the American Secretary of Defense yesterday said its not over - "we still have reason for concern."
A: The spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department said that for them the matter is closed. Word for word, she said it. I did not hear exactly what the Secretary of Defense said, but she explicitly said that, and we know that she is very careful in choosing her words.
Q: That was a week ago. Yesterday however there was a different announcement.
A: But it's the same subject. And she said the matter was closed. On this basis I had the opportunity and the permission to also say that the matter is closed.
Q: You sound very optimistic, Mr. Prime Minister. It sounds as if the situation is indeed excellent ...
A: I did not say that. You have to keep things in proportion. I said, that the network of relations, in its fundamentals, is as it used to be, is friendly. We must make an effort to overcome these difficulties.
Q: To sum up this topic, it does not seem, to me anyway, that after the elections in the U.S. in November, when George Bush will probably be reelected for another term, that the situation will improve, when he will clearly, of course, not be needing of the Jewish vote.
A: You still talk about needing the Jewish vote. What is it? It is not something that in any case obligates taking into account the Jewish factor. And as for what will be after the elections, we shall wait and see. (...)
Q: If you are elected Prime Minister in June, you will reach the government at nearly the age of 77. Are you willing to commit yourself to serving the full four years as Prime Minister, or during the coming term will you pass the sceptre on to another person?
A: Look, it is very difficult to commit oneself to things of this sort. Even a younger man than I cannot make this commitment. And what happens if he feels he cannot any longer? The he will resign. It is not so terrible. But I say, according to how I feel right now, I do not think I have to make conditions, or request certain limitations. I will continue for as along as I can, without limitations.
Q: Four years?
A: Without limitations. If I will feel that I am limited, I will reach the appropriate conclusions.