Mr. Shamir was determined to secure the support of his Likud party for the Israel Peace Initiative. Already there was growing unrest among the senior Likud ministers, with Minister Sharon saying that the plan was the first step towards the creation of a Palestinian state. The prime minister argued that the plan was designed to prevent the creation of such a state. He acknowledged that the plan did entail some risks, which he was prepared to take. He did reiterate his view that even in the final stages of the negotiations, he did not envision "a territorial solution. " Excerpts:
Q: Do you actually intend to submit your resignation to President Herzog if you don't win Likud support?
A: That question has not come up at all, and I have never considered such an idea. The statements to that effect were totally unfounded. Of course there are various viewpoints among the Likud. This does not come as a surprise. The entire initiative was taken and composed and formulated within an extremely short period of time, and we did not have sufficient time to discuss it within [the Likud] Knesset faction, or among the party members. As a result, there is some disgruntlement, and I consider it to be justified. I believe that we will now have sufficient time to present the matter, and explain it to the party members. I am certain that it will receive maximum support.
Q: Have you entertained the possibility that you will not receive support if the Likud's Central Committee is convened? Would it be possible for you to make a political move without the support of your party's leadership?
A: It's unlikely. I am not even considering such a possibility. I am convinced that the Central Committee will give me its support.
Q: Since this issue is so crucial for Israel, wouldn't it have been better to have taken more time, and consulted with your Likud colleagues, before submitting the plan for Cabinet approval?
A: Sometimes there are important matters which must be decided within a defined period of time, with certain constraints. This is neither surprising nor rare. I set off to the U.S. with this plan in hand. The time of my visit had already been set. It was important that I present my initiative to the U.S. authorities. We have seen the good and welcome results of my move. Therefore, perhaps this was several days premature. But I don't think that we lost out on anything. We now have sufficient time to discuss and dispute, to hear the views of the [Likud] members, and I don't see any special problem in that.
Q: You talk about the views of fellow party members, but in fact they are being asked to be a rubber stamp.
A: There is no question here of their being a rubber stamp. We are presenting the plan today. Generally speaking, we still have not drafted or gone into specifics about all the details of the principles of the plan. We have still not completed the plan. I believe that the discussion with the Likud Party will ultimately be useful.
Q: What is your response to Minister Ariel Sharon's strategic assessment that the plan would be the first step toward the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, which could be a disaster for Israel?
A: If this were my conviction, I would never even have touched such a plan. I am convinced that this plan will prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and that it is the best possible weapon for removing this danger from us.
Q: You yourself have said that when a plan is proposed, that is just the first step. Couldn't the claim be made that this plan is simply a starting point, which must ultimately lead to a Palestinian state?
A: I know myself. I am starting off with this plan and I know where I'm heading with it. I am not apprehensive, nor do I envision myself in any situation in which I would be swept along into things I do not desire.
Q: Do you doubt the sincerity of Economy and Planning Minister Yitzhak ModaTs concern about the interests of this country?
A: I am not interested in entering into any controversy with persons who are still serving as members of my Cabinet.
Q: Not even with Sharon?
A: Not with anyone.
Q: Do you not accept the fact that people who are opposed to your political plan may be rejecting it on the basis of its merits?
A: I have no doubts about that. There are indeed those whose motives are absolutely aboveboard, and I am prepared to take them on, to persuade them. I tried to do that yesterday, and with considerable success. And I shall continue to do so. I have full faith in my colleagues.
Q: I read today in "Ma'ariv" that you told a closed meeting of your associates that had the Alignment presented such a plan, you would have voted against it, because the Alignment would never have held up under the pressure.
A: There is something to that. I believe that this path entails risks. There are risks in any move such as this, toward peace. The main risk is that somewhere along the line there will be someone - let's say one of the partners - who will seek to deviate from the course that has been set and agreed upon. We should then have the strength to stop the deviation, even if it entails the total nullification of the entire process. I am relying on us to be able to do this. Perhaps if it was the Alignment which was conducting the matter, I wouldn't rely on it.
Q: But just look at who your partners are in this move: Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Alignment are the main supporters of the plan, and it is in the Likud that opponents can be found.
A: I am referring to the Arab partner.
Q: Isn't the Israeli partner important to you?
A: Without me, there can be no deviation from the move which we have agreed upon today.
Q: What about your current political dependence on sectors of the Alignment, rather than the Likud?
A: This is not so. I rely completely on the members of my party. At the same time, I am proud of the fact that this plan is a creation agreed upon by the two main sections of Israel's political community. There is a great deal of strength inherent in this very fact, which assures the plan's success.
Q: There is an oral and a written version of the plan. Yesterday, in the oral version, you said: "We won't give the Arabs an inch." If this is so, how can you expect your plan to lead anywhere?
A: Anything can be explained, and everything has an oral and a written version. There is a basis in my previous statements for what I said [yesterday]. If, for example, I said, "not an inch," why it's no secret - and I reiterate this -that not even in the realm of the permanent solution do I envision a territorial solution. I do not believe in it, nor will I support it.
Q: Even though the written version mentions "borders"?
A: Borders - we are talking about a peace treaty with Jordan. And in this peace treaty we will have to agree to the borders between Israel and Jordan, among other things. This does not in any way mean that we will relinquish any of our territory, and I don't believe that such a problem is an issue at all.
Q: But the moment you say that you will have to come to an agreement with Jordan on a territorial issue, this implies negotiations on borders and territory.
A: This is a question of making outlines, and I don't believe that there is any difference of opinion on this matter among ourselves, or even with Jordan. And if, here and there, we don't see eye to eye, we will know how to stand up for our interests. ( ... )