(2 of 3)
And if that isn't done, they begin shooting. Where do they begin shooting? Not when they are on one side of the canal and we are on the other, but when we are both on the same side. Or maybe Sadat will say the canal is not important, that what he wants is to get Israel back to the 1967 border. This is exactly the crux of the matter. If Israel decides to withdraw to the 1967 international border, we don't need to do it in stages. If we were to come to a decision we would pack and move to the international border. And he can have the canal cleared or not. We are not responsible for that. The question of where the border should be, the final border, is a question to be decided by negotiation between the parties. We have always said an "agreed border."
Q. You have just given a very pessimistic assessment. Do you think there is any expectation that something can be negotiated, interim or otherwise?
A. We don't want any more than this. We demand for ourselves boundaries that we believe are safe for us and that we believe can deter a next war. What we want are two things. If and when we are attacked, the borders should be such that we will have fewer casualties. Even more important, the borders should be such that every Arab leader who takes it into his mind to attack us will look at them and say, "Ah, that is difficult, maybe we won't do that." That is all.
Q. Somehow to the public eye, at least in the U.S., the impression is that Israel is intransigent.
A. Sure we are intransigent when we face a situation in which Sadat says "peace," but the condition for peace is no negotiations, and we go right back where we came from. There is something else that is absolutely immoral, because it never happened before in human history—the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force. How many around the table of the Security Council can really stand up and swear they have never done it, never without provocation of war, never held any other territory?
Q. In your view, do the turbulence in the Arab world and the apparent inconstancy of the Arab leadership constitute a barrier, mental or otherwise, to negotiations?
A. No. But I think they strengthen our conviction that we are obligated to do everything we can from a security point of view because we never know what is going to happen on the other side. I think the crux of the difficulties of peace in the Middle East is the introduction of an imperialistic power in this area. That is the Soviet Union. I honestly believe the '67 war would not have taken place had it not been for the Russians.
Q. Assistant Secretary of State Joe Sisco was here and presumably had thorough discussions with the government. Do you feel that the prospects for meaningful negotiations were enhanced by your discussions with him?
A. There is always something positive in discussions among friends. Even when there is disagreement. And from that point of view, we welcomed the discussions with Mr. Sisco, as we did those in May with Secretary Rogers, and we are anxious for these discussions to go on.
Q. You seem to grow stronger and thrive on responsibility. Will you stand for reelection?