In the interview which dealt almost exclusively with foreign affairs, over which Mr. Shamir now had total command, the prime minister hinted that unlike the past, he will not reject a UN and a European role in the peace process, and a Soviet one as well, provided the Soviet Union resume diplomatic ties with Israel and allows Jewish emigration. He expressed his resentment at the U.S. decision to talk to the PLO. In the interview he conceded that there have been important changes in the regional and world scene, and they required a new approach. Text:
Q: There have been many reports in recent days on your peace proposals, including some surprising new elements.
A: I stand by my principles, but I am seeking various ways of getting to negotiations, without straying from the principles. The main thing is to get to negotiations. I know very well that the road from negotiations to a settlement is a long one, but if we don't start down this road, we will never reach an agreement. So I am trying, I am examining.
To come today with a ready-made plan would be a waste of ideas, of our arsenal of ideas, because it is almost inevitable that any proposal I will make today will run into Arab refusal, and when the Arabs say they do not accept the plan, that's it. The plan will have ended its life.
So first of all I want to check: Does the plan, or do components of a plan, have a chance not only among the Arabs, but internationally, for example with the Americans. It's not that I'm spreading rumours. I am checking, and I hope that in the end we will achieve something in this way.
Q: Are you concentrating your efforts on the apparatus which will enable the start of negotiations?
A: No, I say the negotiations must be direct, I don't believe in conferences and things like that. But if it can help someone that these negotiations be held under some formal auspices, of the superpowers or of the UN, I don't mind, as long as the negotiations themselves are direct and on condition that the external bodies do not intervene in the content of the negotiations. Maybe it can help.
Q: This week you mentioned for the first time the possibility of UN auspices.
A: Yes, take for example in Iran-Iraq, where they helped, albeit not with much success at this point. But still they have made some headway, and this is being conducted under the auspices of the UN secretary-general, who invites the negotiating sides - I think he is already a little worn out from this matter - but does not intervene in the negotiations themselves. I understand now that there are complications, that the talks have stopped. But never mind, the secretary gives his auspices, and I don't mind this.
Q: But doesn't this indicate a change in your attitude towards the UN?
A: No, I don't think the UN can be our savior. I will never trust any decision made by the UN or by any UN institution, because we know in advance that any UN body, no matter what its composition, will be against us. But to fill a formal role? I don't mind, I don't mind. It just shows how far we are willing to go, even to take certain risks although I stress that this is not a risk, because it cannot affect the substance. I'm willing to try it.
Q: Do your thoughts include ideas on the final settlement, or just the launching of negotiations and perhaps an interim solution?
A: No, I am thinking in complete frameworks, but I do not think that it is worthwhile today to make any plan public, because this will kill it off. The publicity will kill it off. They will say "no," and that's it. And then there is no more plan, and they will demand yet another one - how many plans can we come up with? I am considering various alternatives. If we were on the verge of serious negotiations, then we would go in specific directions.
Q: What is the time limit?
A: It could be that I will propose certain ideas, or even more than that, when I go to Washington.
Q: Is that the essential first step, coordination with the U.S.?
A: That is a crucial discussion, because the U.S. is our most trusted friend in the international arena. But I must say that their recent step with the PLO caused grave damage to peace, grave damage to us. I think they prolonged the intifada. I don't know for how long, but it gave a great push and great encouragement to people who perhaps had reached a point where they were considering desisting from this way. But here they saw that there are rewards, that there is compensation for their sacrifices, and I am surprised that the Americans did not think about this in advance.
It has worked against all of the principles that we stood for in the fight against terror, which the Americans participated in, especially the principle that we have to prove to those engaged in terror that they cannot achieve anything in their ways. By doing this the Americans showed them that they can achieve something. It's conceivable that they were on the verge of a breaking point, and this gave them a push to go on. Still, we have no better friends than the Americans, and the Americans still enjoy more trust from us and certain Arab elements than any other international element.
Q: Are the recent improvements in relations with the Soviet Union, especially following Foreign Minister Moshe Aren's meeting in Paris, disconnected from the peace process, or is there some quid pro quo which the Soviets expect from us?
A: I wouldn't say quid pro quo, but any closing of the gap between us and the Soviet strengthens the chances for peace because the hostile relations and lack of peace with the Arabs was nurtured for a long time by the competition between East and West in the Middle East. The closer we get to them, the more the Arabs will be convinced that they cannot achieve a military solution. When both the Soviet Union and the United States support the way of peace, this can really be of help.
Q: How do you regard the prospect of active Soviet involvement in the peace process?
A: First of all, we have to achieve normal relations with them; we should maintain a friendly dialogue with them, and then we will see how they can help.
In October 1987, I agreed, on condition that they renew relations with us, that the Soviet Union and the U.S. invite the sides to peace talks, thus giving the international seal of approval to the talks. Today, when I talk of superpower auspices, I am talking about the same thing, or something along those lines. Here they have a respectable, important role.
When you start with something, you don't know how it can develop. I think that today the Soviets are interested in calming down the Middle East at least it appears that way. Perhaps they can be of assistance.
Q: Can they play a constructive role behind the scenes, in mediation?
A: I don't know. We are not looking for mediation, the principle is direct negotiations. If someone wants to help - go ahead. If someone can influence one of the sides to moderate its positions we will not object. But it's too early to talk of such a role for the Soviets, when we are still far from normal relations with them.
Q: At a symposium in Jerusalem last week, a professor said that Israel is getting worse and worse press in the West, but better and better press in the East.
A: That happens. Eastern Europe does not usually wait for instructions from the West. These countries have their own interests, and the tendency now is in this direction. They haven't changed their positions, but they know how to differentiate [between the Palestinian problem and other issues]. Take Hungary, for example, ask them if they have changed their attitudes towards the Palestinian problem or self-determination, they will say no. But at the same time they are interested in better relations, and they see no contradiction between the two.
In the West, this question does not arise, because normal relations exist. We are dealing with "critical friends." That is they are friends - one can't say that we don't have friendly relations with France, Britain, or even Italy - and still they are critical of us. So there is no reason for them to speak of the friendship, because it is a fact, and only the criticism can be heard. In the pro-Soviet bloc, the situation is the opposite.
Q: The Spanish foreign minister is arriving here tomorrow night to launch a European peace initiative. How do you regard this European involvement?
A: Look, I have never been opposed to any and all European involvement in the Middle East situation. One can't tell Europe that they have nothing to say on this matter, or that they shouldn't take an interest. They have an interest in what is going on here, they have an interest in peace here. They are, after all, geographically close and they have economic interests here, important markets, oil.
But of course they have no right to impose solutions, or to apply economic pressure. The Americans have a different approach, and we both understand and accept this; these are the fairest of rules in international ties. Somehow this is not clear to Europe. They can't impose on us, just like the great U.S. cannot impose on us. I remember there was once a European ambassador here who said, "why am I wasting my time here, I can't dictate anything to Israel." It's funny.
Q: Can't the EC initiative create negative dynamics?
A: Look, they can't bring us closer to the PLO. That depends only on us. They don't exactly understand us or our motives. They decided already in the 1980 Venice Declaration that the PLO must participate in the whole process. They do not understand that we cannot accept the establishment of a Palestinian state, because by agreeing to that the whole principle of negotiations is undermined. One of the principles of the negotiations, accepted by us and the Americans, is that nothing unilateral is done. That whatever is done is a product of negotiations. But the Europeans say in advance that the end result is a Palestinian state, and this negates our existence as a state. It is hard for me to grasp how they fail to understand this.
Q: The whole world, in some degree or another, is talking to the PLO.
A: But Europe is first and foremost. There is some romance, some love affair there, which I cannot explain. I hope it will pass, that it is some fashion that will disappear, like any other fashion.
Q: Don't you think that we are swimming against the tide on this matter?
A: This is perhaps our historical destiny, to swim against the tide. But we keep on swimming, we have not drowned yet.
Q: You don't regard it as something inevitable, that one day we will have to change?
A: That is impossible. You know the story "Partial Consolation" of Ehad Ha'am. He says there that many Jews are asked how is it possible that the Jews are right, that all the world hates us. There is a clear case - the blood libel. We all know that this is a nefarious libel - we don't use the blood of Christian children to make the matzot. But still we are accused of it. So this is the proof, this is the partial consolation, that one can swim against the tide but still be right, be convinced that our truth will come to light. I don't see any possibility of giving up.
In the years before World War 11, all of Europe was pro-Nazi, and this was a trend which went and swelled, from state to state, rapidly and consistently. Although this hurt us a lot, we didn't sink, we stayed alive.
I remember it personally. I remember how as a student I walked in Warsaw and I could actually feel it coming. Here it comes, here it is overcoming us - I remember the Polish students looking for Jewish prey - and in the end it passed.
Thos who went through that experience before the world war - for them it is easier to believe that this too will pass. The PLO cannot be compared to the Nazis, in the sense that the PLO is not an international power, it is a fashion, but not a power. We will overcome it.
Q: You say that we cannot negotiate with the PLO because its minimum position is a Palestinian state. But Palestinians that we can negotiate with will also support a Palestinian state, so maybe they should also be barred?
A: We don't have to accept what they want. But the PLO has an ideological commitment, it cannot agree to less. The Palestinians, on the other hand, those who want to live their lives freely, they are capable of realizing that they cannot attain everything they want, and I am sure that there are those who understand that Israel cannot trust what the PLO says. We know them too well. I told the European parliamentary delegation this week - based on what is happening in Lebanon, where women and children are being mercilessly murdered - that the Arabs don't treat human life the same way that we do.
Q: What is your reaction to the chief of staff's statements this week, that the IDF cannot bring the intifada to an end, and that Fatah has curtailed its terror operations?
A: I really don't think that I should argue with him, but these statements were superfluous.
Q: How do you see the eventual solution to the problem of Palestinian representation? Elections perhaps?
A: I don't see a possibility for elections in the current circumstances, before the autonomy. Of course, elections after the autonomy are necessary, but, you know, it's one of the ideas that have to be examined. There are all sorts of elections, municipal and so on.
Q: What is the state of relations with Egypt?
A: They must be improved. They are not as good as they should be, a way should be found. Egypt should play a positive role in the peace process, and it's not for me to look for the reasons why they shouldn't.
Q: Finally, a question on politics. In the final analysis, you emerged from the coalition negotiations with the type of government that you wanted. But how do you relate to the fact that during the negotiations you had to sign papers and agreements which you did not even start to implement? Did you know at the time that you signed these agreements that they would not be kept?
A: I am not such a student of Machiavelli, I am not Machiavelli at all. I didn't emerge victorious, the state of Israel did. And for such a victory, one can, in times of need, take unsavoury steps. There is no point in talking about what happened.
I do regret the general direction of the coalition negotiations. Perhaps it was that way because of the political system in Israel, which must be changed. The constitutional system must be changed, so that such events will not be repeated, will be impossible. Today we are looking at ways to change it. To ensure more proper ways of setting up a government.
Q: This is not the first time that there is talk of changing the electoral system.
A: For me, it's the first time.
Q: Are you convinced that this time around it will really be carried out?
A: I sincerely hope so, although it depends on our partners as well. I will do whatever is in my power. We need to reach agreement with our partners, I hope we will, I can't see why we shouldn't. And then, at least, even if this government doesn't have any other achievement - and I hope it will - this achievement will surely be enscribed in its favour.