News in Perspective; 98; An Interview with Israeli Premier Golda Meir

The following program is from NET. The Public Television Network. From the Knesset Building in Jerusalem, Israel, National Educational Television and the New of Times presents Use in Perspective. Special edition, Prime Minister Goldameer, in a conversation with Clifton Daniel. Now Mr. Daniel.

This is my first visit to Israel. When I was in Jerusalem 22 years ago, as a correspondent of the New York Times, the country was called Palestine and it was governed somewhat precariously by the British under a mandate from the League of Nations. Mrs. Goldameer was then a major official of the Jewish Agency, which was working with other Zionist organizations to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. They succeeded against the bitter opposition of their Arab neighbors. It took one war to establish the State of Israel and two more to preserve it. Mrs. Meier was one of the founders and pioneers of the Jewish State, the most prominent and influential woman in the country. Now, the age of 71, she's reached the pinnacle of the career she started as a school teacher

in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She is the Prime Minister of Israel. In earlier days, Mrs. Meier and I knew each other. We are renewing the acquaintance here in an anti-room of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. In a dramatic and handsome new building, high on a hill in Jerusalem. Mrs. Meier, a few days ago, Israel came of age. She celebrated her 21st birthday, and that was dancing in the streets, aside from the establishment of the State itself. What has been the greatest achievement of the Zionist movement and of the people of Israel? Well, to me, probably the greatest achievement is that since the State of Israel was established in 1948, on the Friday afternoon, and Saturday morning, a boat reached the port of Tel Aviv, which a week before that would have been called Illegal Immigrants.

I remember some of them, yes. They came in that morning, they weren't illegal, they came into the State, and since then, there is no more Jewish refugee in the world. We were always identified as a refugee people throughout the years, throughout decades-probably centuries. They were Jews wandering around from one place to another, and not always finding an open door, and always presenting a problem to many people of the world. Since that day, there is no problem of Jewish refugees. That was the problem, of course, that the State was created to solve. Exactly. It's a 20-second year, has this safe haven, this secure haven for Jews? Is it secure? In recent times, there has been heavy shooting and bombing across the borders with Jordan and Egypt. Secretary General Lutheran of the United Nations has said that there is a virtual State of War along the Suez Canal.

Do you agree with the Secretary General's estimate of the situation, incidentally? Well, there is as long as there is shooting, I suppose it is some kind of state of war. It isn't peace at any rate, and it isn't quiet. But we feel that the State is secure, and are hoping as we did throughout from the very beginning that all shooting should cease. Moreover, we believe that the day will come when it will. The fighting doesn't seem to alarm you, and it doesn't seem to, in your opinion, seriously endanger the security of the State. What about the public reaction? How is the public reacting to the present situation? The public in Israel, yes. There couldn't be better. I think you saw them on the day of independence with thousands of young people in the streets from schools from all over the country.

You go through the streets of any city. You go to the villages, the Kibbutteem and Moshevim, in the valley of the Jordan, or the valley of Bitsyan, those that are being right, very often, attacked by the Jordanians from the other side of the border, with shells sometimes during the day, very often at night. The children now have been living actually in the air shelters for probably a year and a half. As far as the spirit is concerned, not the single one has budged. The city of Bitsyan, for instance. Some people were leaving Bitsyan throughout the years since it was established, but since the first shelling from the other side, not one single person got up and left Bitsyan. What about the feeling outside, are immigrants still coming? Immigrants coming, as a matter of fact, this will be a pretty good year, as far as immigration

is concerned. By pretty good, what are the figures? I think we'll reach about 40,000 by the end of the year. And tourists? Tourists are starting to welcome foreign exchange. Tourists? Well, they don't bring only foreign exchange rich. We welcome that too, but we welcome the idea that they come. It's very interesting to see them come. It's interesting, a very good friend of mine. That comes here quite often, and always travels L.O. told me the other day he had to come by another airline because there was no rule for him in L.O. When general, what is the state of Israel's defenses and of her armaments and manpower, as compared with 1967? Well, I think we are much better situated today than we were then. You cannot, I think you cannot differentiate between, or divorce, manpower, armaments, and the place where the men are, stand.

And of course, the difference is very evident and extremely important. Just before the war, the latter part of May and the first days of June, and some people forget that, the bombers, Egyptian bombers, and planes were about three and four minutes from Tel Aviv. Now they're much farther away. And the Israeli army is considered a nearer Cairo than it was on that day. Yes. Quite. In comparison, but the only difference is that the bombers that NASA brought into the Sinai Desert were brought there in order to attack Tel Aviv. We are near Cairo, and we have no intention or desire nor ambition to attack Cairo or to attack any other place. Let's look at the other side for a moment. What do you think of the state of armaments and military capability on the other side

of the border, particularly in Egypt? Well as far as we know, if we speak about equipment, it has been more than replaced what they have lost during the war. The Soviet Union immediately, after the six-day war, began airlifting all kinds of equipment to Egypt to replace what they have lost, and as far as we know, they have received more than they have lost. And in relative terms, you still think that Israel is stronger than it was when it faced the Egyptians in 1967. Are we, yes? There's no doubt about that. Does this fighting between Israel and her neighbors, in your opinion, if it doesn't seriously endanger Israel at this time, does it endanger world peace? No.

I don't think that we are around the brink of war. But going on on the Suez Canal or the Gideonian border is certainly not peace, and they're shooting. There's fighting there, but certainly we do not feel that real war will break out. If there were a real war, do you have any concern now that there might be Soviet intervention on the other side as the Soviet Union is now so strong in the Mediterranean Basin? No, I don't think it will. I don't think the Soviet Union would intervene and take the risk that maybe somebody else may intervene. And we've learned a lesson of the fifth of June. I think the Soviet Union has learned this lesson. I think the world should have taken account of it, that whether the Soviet Union wanted to intervene or not, of course, I do not know.

But what is important is that it didn't. And I see no reason why it should want to do it now, if there will be fighting again. Do you believe that the Soviet Union then is putting a restraining hand on the shoulder of the Arabs or not? Well, I don't know. The fact that it has against the large quantities of arms into Egypt would not show that it is trying to restrain the Arabs because I'm convinced that the Soviet Union knows beyond any doubt that Israel did not want to attack anybody in the past, nor does it have any desire to do it in the present, or in the future. I'm sure that the Soviet Union is convinced of that, therefore, the sending of arms of Soviet arms to the Arab countries in our area, especially to Egypt, certainly is not because

the Soviet Union has come to the conclusion that they are in danger and therefore need those arms and self-defense. I would say that when the Soviet Union started to be the supplier of arms to Egypt in 55, it was the so-called Czech deal, but it was actually a deal with the Soviet Union. It was not in order to give Egypt arms for its defense, but I believe that to my sorrow, the situation is that Arab leaders, when you give them arms, you're practically taking more or less control of their countries, and arms seems to be important item to them. Speaking of arms suppliers, are you satisfied at the moment with your sources of supply, particularly the United States of America?

We're very appreciative of what the United States has done and is doing now to give us the minimum that we need for some things that is the only supplier now in the world after France has acted as it has. We appreciate that very much. I think our military people have quite a shopping list that they would like to have filled. I hope it will be. Are you perturbed by the thought that perhaps the big four powers might agree on some sort of an arms embargo for all countries in the Middle East? I don't know what the four powers can agree on, or will they come to any agreement or will they not, and anybody that speaks of an embargo of arms to the Middle East, and we would be the first ones that would be happy to throw all the hardware into the sea at any rate

to stop spending one single penny on additional hardware, because there are many other things that we enjoy more, spending money on than tanks or planes or things of this kind. But anybody that speaks of an embargo certainly should take many other things in consideration. There must be some balance, a fair balance of power between us and the Arab countries, and it's not between us and one Arab country, between us and all the others in our neighborhood, until the day when there will be real peace. But therefore, just merely saying that from now on, from this moment on, no more shipments into the Middle East does not put all of us on a fair basis. But before we get to what the four powers may agree on, we certainly want to talk about that.

Thank you. If you can tell me what you think is the reason for this recent increase in military activity on the borders that you have described as being, I would say, damaging, but not too dangerous. Well, I heard it said here incidentally that this is not a military offensive, but a diplomatic one. Who said that? I said, I've heard it said here in Jerusalem. I was just going to say that the shells fall in the near-our-men. But I think it is intended that the sound should be heard somewhere else. Look what has happened. The Arabs were preparing Egypt primarily, but all the others joined in quickly, at least our neighbor from the other side of the Jordan thought it was a proper thing to do to join in.

They were preparing the war, the 15th, 16th of May, until the 5th of June, a massed army and tanks and planes and guns and whatnot filled the Sinai desert with a hope, I suppose, that they can just march through, bomb out the country and occupy it, and they did not succeed. And we immediately, after the war, said, well, all right, you have tried again for the third time. You have not succeeded, but we didn't say it in a voice of bragging. They can tell you that after such a victory, first victory is that we remain alive. But after this kind of a victory, there is no celebration in the country. There is no dancing in the streets. This was not the mood.

The mood was, the war is over. We are alive. Now again, we will ask for peace. And we have been begging for peace from the very first moment, not because we feel that we are so weak, but because we just don't want any more wars, we didn't want them in the first place. Now instead of the Arab leaders feeling the weight of their sins and of their responsibility, not towards Israel, towards their own people to give up this spending of money and efforts just for war and for killing and being killed and try to do something about it. And the only thing they can do is to meet us and come to a peace agreement with us. We have a feeling that the formation of the four just lifted the responsibility of the shoulders of President Nasser and King Hussein.

And now they sit back and say, well, somebody is going to take care of it for us. But in order that they do it well, and in our favor, just do a little bit of shooting so that they should really work under the pressure of the possibility of war breaking out any moment. Do you think that this little bit of shooting has helped or hurt prospects of peace then? As far as I think that as long as the four powers sit there, there is no reason why the Arab leaders should say, well, we're tired of this. Maybe we should meet the Israelis and try to come to a peace agreement. Why should they? I was speaking of peace agreement. As you know, I recently had a talk on television also with President Nasser in Cairo. And he said that the only basis for a settlement of the 1967 war was the Security Council resolution of November 1967.

He particularly emphasized that Israel must withdraw from all territories occupied during the war and repatriate or compensate the Palestinian Arabs who have been displaced in the fighting since 1948. First of all, in discussing this, could you tell me or could you clarify for me Israel's attitude toward the United Nations resolution? We said that the United Nations resolution is a basis for peace agreement and we saw it as an effort to bring the parties together for a peace agreement. As such, we have accepted it. We have cooperated with Dr. Yaring from the very beginning. It was his duty, according to this agreement, to get in touch with the parties, communicate with the parties, to try to bring about an agreement between the parties.

As far as we are concerned, we were in perfect agreement with that task and cooperated with him. And when Dr. Yaring at one moment thought that maybe he could convene a meeting of foreign ministers or representatives of the government, we immediately said, yes, we're willing to come anywhere at any time, but there was no cooperation from the other side. You don't regard the resolution, however, as an absolute mandate for you to do certain things. No question. The resolution was not accepted as a number of resolutions, one saying, this must be done and wait until that is done, then something else must be done and so on. This is, as President Nasser says, the Arab interpretation of the resolution. But everybody else's interpretation is, as it was interpreted, at that meeting and that is that all the articles of that resolution are integral parts of one resolution.

There is no such thing that you begin, first, some Mr. Nasser always likes to say that the first resolution is of the first article, the first item is that Israel should withdraw from Arab health territories. He then puts in another word from all Arab territories, of course, that little word all is not in the resolution, but that is only part of it. And if Nasser, and as long as Nasser interprets it, that first, the first thing that must happen is that Israel should withdraw to the borders of the 4th of June. Second thing we should do is open doors, wide open and allow all the refugees to come back. Well, after that, he doesn't have to worry anymore. The war is settled. Everything will be settled. You mean from this point of view, the war is settled? Yes, he doesn't have to worry about the other items on the resolution.

But that wasn't the intention of the resolution, and that it wasn't what was decided. Well, the stickiest point in the resolution, it seems to me, is that one, calling for, to use the exact words which you've just mentioned, calling for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories of recent conflict. The Arabs, as you say, read that one way, Israel reads it another. I know you don't want to and don't intend to give away your negotiating position, but you have said here in Jerusalem that there are some places that Israel does not intend to give up. What are they? No, I think when Israel answered this very important and vital question, when government and the Knesset adopted a stand and announced it officially, saying that we want secure, recognized, and agreed borders. Now, agreed does not mean the borders that are agreed on by the Israel cabinet.

We sit among ourselves and we agree on borders. We have no discussion on the cabinet on borders. Agreed that means indirect negotiations between us and the Arab states. After we have said that, I don't think we should be required to say anything more. Well, you and others, I think, have mentioned several areas, if I may tick them off just one moment. First of all, the Golan Heights in Syria, there are already, I believe, ten settlements established there, ten Israeli settlements. In effect, it seems that there is a de facto annexation taking place, or at the very least Israel has indicated a desire to continue to control that area. Is there any point in talking about that with the Syrians, or with anyone else, or is it beyond negotiation? First of all, it's with the Syrians, it's easy.

They don't even talk to Dr. Yaring, a little long talking to Israelis. But seriously speaking, I believe that anybody that goes up to the Golan Heights and sees our people down below, answers the question himself. As a matter of fact, I have not yet met anybody that has been up on the Golan Heights, and that doesn't come down saying to us, of course, this is not a point for discussion at all. For nineteen years, our people were working down in the fields in the valley, and the Syrian guns were pointing at them, and shelling those villages. Every house, if you've been up to the Golan Heights, you can see every house, every person walking in the yard, like in the palm of your hand. And no wonder that after the fighting was over, the commander of the Northern, the region being up there, and as soon as the fighting was over, the first thing he did was to send

a message down below to the people saying that only from these heights do I see how big you are. They were big to sit there for nineteen years and not budging, but certainly we're not going to do that again. Would neutralization or demilitarization serve the same purpose? You know, I don't think there is a trick in the game that hasn't been tried in Israel. We've had demilitarized zones with agreement, signed armistice agreements with our neighbors, and one paper, they and we, and we have didn't know one day of peace in demilitarized zones. We've had UN observers, we've had the UN emergency force, everything, I don't think there's another gimmick that can be tried. And the result was after the forty-eight war, the fifty-sixth war, and after the fifty-sixth war, the sixty-seven war.

And Israel has decided now that as far as it is concerned, this must be the last war. We've won every one of those wars. If we'll be forced into another war, I'm convinced that everybody in Israel is, we'll win again. But that is not ambition to win wars. We don't want wars. Well, another very tender point with the Arabs, of course, as you very well know, is East Jerusalem, which has now been legally incorporated into the Jewish city of Jerusalem, in effect. The city has been unified. The city has been unified. And there are housing units, a thousand of them, I think, being built for Jewish families in East Jerusalem. Is this, as far as Israeli opinion and the Israeli government is concerned, another accomplished fact? Or absolutely. Absolutely. It's going a little bit into the history of Jerusalem. The resolution of the United Nations, November 47, everything that happens in November

in the United Nations, November 47, Jerusalem was to be an international city. Were we overjoyed with that decision? No. A Jewish state without Jerusalem is a distortion of really what it should be. But we accepted it. And two or three days after that, trouble started in this country, in the Arabs attacking us on roads and so on. And in 48, this city that should have been the care of what is called the family of nations was being shelled from Jordan. Not one finger of any hand was lifted in order to save the holiness of this city, let alone its people.

If anybody protected Jerusalem in those days, you know it was only we. And by force, by war, because we were weak at that time, the city was cut in half. And the old city was taken over by Jordan. Not because the United Nations decided it should be so, by sheer force. And not one single Jew was allowed to remain there. And when the armistice agreements were signed, and there was a famous article eight in the armistice agreement between Jordan and Israel, which said free access to all religious places, to all cultural institutions and humanitarian institutions, and the running of those institutions, which meant especially the Hadassah Hospital amounted scopus. The facts were that not one Jew was allowed to go to the waiting room. All Jewish synagogues were destroyed.

No Jew was allowed to live there. And the family of nations that decided in 47 that Jerusalem was to be internationalized didn't say a word, didn't do anything, didn't ask Abdullah to leave Jerusalem. He occupied it by force. And it was a horrid site that in the heart of this holy city was a barbed wire separating Jewish Jerusalem from Arab Jerusalem. On 5 June, King Hussein got a message sent to him by the late Prime Minister Levy Eschol through General Bull, telling him, if you keep out, nothing will happen to you. But as King Hussein published himself afterwards, his memoirs of those days, he said he received a cable that morning from President Nasser, saying the Egyptian planes are bombing all

of Israel, come in, the water is good, step in, and he did. And this time, we united Jerusalem. And there's no doubt in the mind of any Muslim or any Christian. As far as the access to the holy places are concerned, they are guaranteed 100%. Even more so, we have no ambition or desire that we should manage any of those holy places. Perfectly willing and prepared and anxious to see that those to whom these places are holy and sacred, they should be those responsible for the sake of Arab government or of Muslim and other and Christian religious parties. First place, as far as the Christian the holy places are concerned, there are Christian

churches and so on. As far as the religious Muslim places are concerned, we wouldn't mind who it is. If Jordan is supposed to represent that, we'll then certainly some arrangement where the holy Muslim places will be under their jurisdiction, not territorial jurisdiction, but jurisdiction over the holy places, certainly that wouldn't be a problem. About the other places that have been mentioned, you have said that Israel will not in the future depend on others to protect her navigation rights. Does that mean that you require some sort of military position on the state of Tehran or some kind of military guarantee on the Suez Canal? The guarantee we got in 57, with the UN emergency force stationed. One of the things in my life that I'm not very proud of is the fact that I had to make

the statement on behalf of government, of course. March 1st, 1957, the assembly of the United Nations, a statement of hopes and aspirations and I cannot pride myself that it was I who had made up this statement. Every word and every comma and every dot was cleared with the late Mr. Dulles. And he in turn cleared it with other maritime powers. And only after that, the guarantees of maritime powers and the United States, I got up and made this statement that we are prepared to withdraw from the Sherem al-Sheikh, with hopes and aspirations and unconditions that the UN emergency force remains there until the situation becomes normal, which means that there is peace and boats will pass freely. And I said in that statement, which was also agreed that if our shipping will be disturbed

our boats attacked, we will then act in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations, which means self-defense. That was accepted. What happened afterwards, you know? And 23rd of May, 1967, NASA asked the UN people of Sherem al-Sheikh to go home, and that was the end of his real shipping. So in the future, what precautions are you going to take? And we are there. When you are there. Let's turn from territory. And when we'll be there, everybody ships will go through the streets of Tehran. Let's turn from places and territories to talk about people for a moment. The 1967 United Nations Resolution also called for a just settlement of the refugee problem. What would you regard as just, or what is Israel prepared to do about the Arab refugees?

Your permission may I also make some comments on the subject of refugees. The world, some because they don't know, and some because it is easier to forget, and think of refugees in this area that in 1948, an Arab refugee problem was created. That's true, created by the Arab states. But it isn't true that that was the only refugee problem. There was a Jewish refugee problem. When the state of Israel was established, that same day, there were 300,000 Jewish refugees, three years after the war was over, and Hitler was no more. 300,000 Jews in the camps in Germany, in Italy, and in Cyprus. There were three years after the war, those in the European camps in Germany, especially,

in those very camps, where they saw their nearest and their dearest gassed and buried alive and so on. And there were Arab refugees who left the area that was supposed to be Israel because of the war that the Arab states declared. What has happened to these two groups of refugees? But in addition to these 300,000 Jews, refugees, we have absorbed, received into our country, hundreds of thousands from Arab, Muslim countries, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, from the caves in Libya, local, Tunis, Syria, Lebanon, and so on. More Jews have come from Arab countries than the number of Arabs that left Israel territory.

What have we done with our people? They came in rags, they came diseases, they came many of them illiterate, very many of them, very, very few with any skills of any kind. We were 650,000 Jews in the country. This was not a highly developed country and industry and so on. We had, this was a country under the British mandate that was importing food products. The little food that we grew in our country, we shared with these people. We immediately introduced a very strict austerity program. Shared everything, rationing and food and clothes and shoes and furniture, everything because we wanted to share. We got help from the outside. We got help from Jews.

We got help from the United States government. We put these people to work. We put them into agriculture. We organized agricultural villages. They weren't farmers. They didn't know the first thing about farming. If we now export agricultural products to Europe and we do, a lot of it is due to them. They've become good farmers now. We not only rehabilitated them, but we have turned them into a very important element of developing the country. What has happened on the other side? We were put into camps, unrest poured millions, hundreds of millions of dollars into those camps. Where is Arab solidarity? Where are the royalties, some of the royalties in Kuwait and of Saudi Arabia? Where is the brotherhood of trying to absorb them? Believe me, the difference between a European Jew in Israel and a Yemeni Jew that came. The clash of centuries, there's no clash between an Arab that lived on this side of the

Jordan and went over on the other side of the Jordan. It's the same religion, the same language, the same way of life, and they didn't come in rags, and they didn't come diseased. But we accepted our refugees as brothers. We wanted them, we wanted to see that they become productive human beings, and the other side they were kept in misery as a weapon against us, and that was more important than humanitarian considerations. But even so, Israel is prepared, I believe, to make some contribution to the solution of the people. Despite that, we set, first praise, throughout the years we have been receiving some refugees all in all over 40,000, we call the reunion of families. In addition to that, we have said right along in the United Nations and everywhere else that we are prepared towards the solution of the refugee problem to pay compensation

for land and buildings and houses and everything that was left behind these refugees. There's never any discussion on that. That we're prepared. But we say that the problem must be a regional solution, and not for Israel to open the doors because these refugees are for March in now as an army. You mentioned something a moment ago that I'd like to go back to. You have repeatedly called on the Arabs to sit down face-to-face and negotiate a settlement, and the Arabs have steadfastly refused. Except for you, they only accept acceptable method of reaching an agreement. Yes. And it's not a matter of technique. But if they don't want to sit down with us, it means they haven't yet accepted us. Let us say they haven't acquiesced.

It's a symbolic thing that you're seeking. No, it's symbolic, but it's very much of the essence. If they sit down and negotiate with us, then one accepted that they have come to the conclusion that after trying to throw us into the sea three times in 20 years, now they're prepared to live with us. And that's what's important. Because unless they're prepared for that, then there's no peace. Well, what is a particular merit also of a peace treaty or a peace contract, some sort of contractual agreement, rather than let us say a simple exchange of decorations through the Third Body? It's the same. It's coming back exactly to the same thing. If and when the Arabs are prepared, admit up their minds, to live in peace with us, then there is no reason why then we should sit down, after all we're either parties concerned, we'll discuss borders, we'll discuss refugees, we'll discuss every problem on the agenda,

and breach an agreement, sign this agreement, and we'll live in peace after that. If they're not prepared to do it, then it's again some kind of a makeshift that has led to two wars after the first war of liberation, and we'll pave the way for a fourth war. Something as I said before, we are absolutely decided this will not happen. I believe that one of the essential differences between us and our Arab neighbors is our attitude to people. For instance, we have won all these wars. Why was there no celebration after the 5th of June the war? Because people pay even for a victory in war, and pay something that is very, very dear,

is the lives of young boys, it's our sons. And our sons came back not only in a mood of sorrow, after this great victory, of sorrow because they saw their very close friends near them fall in battle, but also because they had to shoot and kill others. Because their fathers did in 48, and fell in battle, these boys were left orphans, and now they went to war, in 56, their older brothers went to war, now they went to war, now there are regained orphans, we refuse to do anything, which will say to our now for me, for my generation, to my grandchildren.

I was in Haganah, my son and daughter were in Haganah when they were 12 or 13 years old, and then the second world war, and then the struggle for independence. And now I have to raise my grandchildren or see them grow with this shadow of war over their heads, if it will come, it will come, but I refuse to help it to come. You've already indicated that you think that the peace should be made by the participants in this struggle themselves, and you indicated also your disapproval, I think, of the efforts by the four great powers to find a peace formula for the Middle East. Could you tell us exactly why you were so opposed to the four power discussions? There are two reasons, one, and a matter of broad principle, I do not believe, nor do I accept, the right of any powers large or small to decide the fate of others.

Going to the charter of the United Nations, all countries are equal, everyone has one vote. But small countries should know their place, and everybody is equal, but some are more so. And we know our place, we're a small country. But I maintain that in one thing, every country is equal, every people is equal. And it's right to decide its own fate. And it's right of sovereignty, if it's a small country, it's a sovereignty over a small country, small people, small sovereign people. The larger, the richer are more fortunate. But the right of sovereignty is equal for all. We have no quarrel with the United States.

Let me ask you about that point, has there the willingness of the United States to enter into these four power discussions, disturb your relations with the United States or impale them in any way? No, no. You know, with our friends, the difference between our friends and our enemies, with our friends, we sometimes have differences of opinion, so we discuss it with them. With our enemies, we don't talk, I mean, they don't talk to us. The United States is the greatest friend we have, and we have differences of opinion, but we're friends. Now, there's another reason why we are against the four. Look at the composition of the four. Of course, immediately say, well, there are two against you and two for you, but that isn't right. Russia, that is not only, say, in British understatement, unfriendly to Israel, I think that Russia is at least as responsible as the Arabs in the 67 war, maybe more so.

That fiction that they spread, they knew that they were spreading fiction. Of the Israel army, massed, and the Syrian border, prepared to attack Syrian, therefore Egypt must come and save Syria, they knew that there wasn't a particle of truth in it. They were banging away on the radio in the Arab language, for hours and hours, and excited the Arabs, NASA probably didn't believe it, but the others believed it. His people believed that the Syrians believed it. Now they sit there, and to my great sorrow, France is a different France after 67, but so these two have voted right down the line against Israel on everything. Russia, for all the years, and France has quickly caught up with Russia during the last two years.

So they're against Israel, pro-Arab. The United States and Britain are friends of Israel, they're not anti-Arab, they won't do anything and shouldn't to hurt the Arabs, they're friends of Israel, but they're certainly friends of the Arabs. I don't think Britain would say that they're more friends of Israel than they are of Jordan. I don't think that they would say that they are anti-Egypt, so what do you have? You have two that are fair, the friends of Israel, the friends of the Arabs. You have two that are anti-Israel. Well as a Jerusalem post said the other day, you don't like the arithmetic of the situation. They put it that way. In essence it seems to me that what you're asking of the world at large is a sort of benevolent neutrality while you and the Arabs get together and settle accounts between yourselves. If that's a fair statement, I don't quite understand how you're going to entice the

Arabs to the peace talks, how you're going to get them to the table. Well I don't want neutrality and the part of large powers or small powers. I think what they should do is to try whatever is in their power to get the parties who are involved in the struggle to sit down and make peace. I once said it at the meeting that only those that met on the battlefield should sit down around the table and discuss their affairs because it concerns us and them. And nobody doesn't concern anybody else at any rate as vitally as it does us. And I think that if efforts were put in to try and convince the Arab states to sit down with us, maybe they would have succeeded, I'm not sure, but unless and until the Arabs are prepared to sit down with us, then there is no hope that anything radical will happen.

And I think if the Arabs were faced with this situation, either you sit down with the Israelis and try to reach a peace agreement with them or things remain as they are. One said the other day that the Arabs want to make peace and they can't make war, but they would make a great deal of propaganda. Look propaganda, I once had a long discussion with the late Mr. Hammershield. I said look, the Nasser makes these terrible speeches against us and incites his young people to a great ideal, they must grow up to fight Israel and throw Israelis into the sea. He says, why do you listen to what he says? After all these are only words, but I said look, as long as he makes these speeches, not only he is not prepared to make peace with us, he is educating a new generation that won't want to make peace with us, but propaganda is not important really, a shooting is more

dangerous. Shortly before his death, your predecessor, whom you mentioned earlier, Prime Minister Ishko, told Newsweek that Israel didn't want any part of the settled area captured from Jordan on the West Bank of the Jordan River. Is that now established government policy? The Israel cabinet, Israel government, underlavery Ishko, to my mind accepted and lived up to a very, very wise policy, and I hope that I won't spoil it. And that is that after we have said that we are prepared and want agreed borders, secure, but also agreed borders, and as long as the Arabs won't talk to us, there is no reason whatsoever why we should go into any discussion or any game of drawing maps, with whom either

we should discuss it among ourselves in Israel, that would be rather silly, or with our friends with whom we did not go, we did not have any war. The only ones with whom we have to decide on boundaries or agree on boundaries are with our Arab neighbors. And when we say we want agreed borders, then there is room to talk. And since they won't talk, why should we go into begin arguing and bargaining about borders either among ourselves or with our friends who are not directly constrained to these borders? There is one possibility here that interests me and I like to ask you about. It seems to me that if peace is a long time coming, that Israel may be obliged by circumstances either to absorb some of these territories, which she may not wish to have, or at least to assume full governmental responsibility for them.

Can they simply be left to stagnate if you'd like for five, ten to fifteen years while the Arabs hold back from the peace table? First place may be we are more optimistic than you are and think that the solution will come before years will have passed. And the second place, I don't say that it doesn't create problems, there are problems. That is the truth that there are problems. But in the third place, we are trying to do everything we can to not only worsen their situation, I think we have in some cases already improved. I think agriculture, for instance, in some of the areas is improved because we brought in modern methods. But isn't there some disagreement in your cabinet as to the policy to be followed, that is particularly with bringing Arab refugees and others to work inside Israel, inside the

borders of Israel? Well, I want to tell you one thing that we are all agreed upon. And that is that the only government to whom the Arabs in the various areas can turn with their problems and their needs is the Israel government, naturally. Therefore we are responsible, we are responsible mainly and primarily in the question of employment and education and services and so on. Some of us say it is preferable to the extent that it is possible to create places of employment on the spot in the areas, even if we have to do a bit of development even in industries or in other, that is investment, Israeli investment in the other. Israeli investment or other investment for an investment we don't know, we don't have

so much to invest. But to create places there, until they have employment there. And on this we create them, thousands of Arabs work here, the difference is that somebody that comes from Nabilis or from Janine or from other areas, whereas before he got two, three or four Israeli pounds per day, now he gets fifteen or sixteen. Well, since we have mentioned the cabinet, let me ask you one quick thought final question. You have been asked many times, you have been Prime Minister now I think for only five or six weeks, are you a candidate to succeed yourself after the elections, the parliamentary elections in November? I have been asked this question, but for instance if somebody had asked me two or three months ago, have I any ambitions to be Prime Minister, I would have laughed out loud. I had no intentions to starting a new political career at my age. And generally, never in my long life have I planned a career for myself.

I belong to a party, I'm a disciplined member of my party, I always have been. That's a good note I might say for a party member to end on because reluctantly and apologetically, I must interrupt, the hour has been a fascinating one, but it's over. I'm glad you have to interrupt at this point. I'm sorry I have to thank you, Madam Prime Minister, and goodbye from the Knesset in Jerusalem. National educational television and the New York Times has presented news in perspective. National edition, Prime Minister Goldamiir with Clifton Daniel, managing editor of the New York Times. .

. . . .