A PALESTINE STATE: 'INCONCEIVABLE '

Menachem Begin was courtly and hospitable last week when TIME Jerusalem Bureau Chief Donald Neffand Correspondent David Halevy interviewed him at his Tel Aviv apartment. "This is where I hid out from the British in the late '40s," he grinned. "If they had ever caught me here, they would have shot me down without asking questions. "Said Begin:

ON A PALESTINIAN STATE. It is inconceivable to us to allow a Palestinian state. Let me tell you that's not only the opinion of the Likud. On this we have a national consensus. The previous government was also of the same opinion. Under no circumstances can we agree to a so-called Palestinian state. It would be a mortal danger to us. There is a consensus of, I suppose, 95% of the people, and by their political representatives, not to allow such a development to take place.

ON BEING CALLED A TERRORIST. I don't give a damn what I'm called. I'm used to it. Let me explain. In the '40s, the Germans were killing our brethren. No Jews were allowed to come into this country. We begged the British, "Open the gates; let them come in." What did we do? We started to fight, to open the gates and allow our people to be saved from destruction. We started to fight to save our people. Now take [Palestine Liberation Organization Leader Yasser] Arafat. What is his aim? He said in the so-called Palestinian charter that it was the destruction of the Jewish state. Israel must disappear. He wants to destroy a nation. Our aim is to save a people. When I am called a terrorist and Arafat is called a guerrilla, I think it is the apex of injustice.

ON LIKUD AND LABOR. The difference between the parties is not on a Palestinian state, not on Jerusalem never to be divided again, not on no return to the lines of 1967. The difference is that the Labor Party says we should be ready to give back part of Judea and Samaria [the West Bank]. Likud is not ready to do so. To whom are we going to give it back? [In 1948] King Abdullah invaded this country from Jordan, he killed our people, destroyed our synagogues and he occupied part of it. Then in the early '50s he annexed it. Nobody recognized that annexation but Britain and Pakistan. The U.S. never recognized it. So give what back? It doesn't belong to them.

ON A WEST BANK SOLUTION. We are ready to give the people of Samaria and Judea free option of citizenship. If they want Israeli citizenship, they will get it. If they prefer to keep their previous citizenship, they may. We are not going to force ours on them. They can have complete cultural autonomy and social and economic advancement, living in their homes. This is their homeland--living together with us. What is wrong with a Jewish majority living together with an Arab minority in peace, in human dignity, in equality of rights? I believe that we can live together. It is not an occupied country as people understand that horrible term. We let them live in their homeland.

ON ANNEXING THE WEST BANK. I object to the word annex. You annex foreign land by international law. You don't annex your own country. You wouldn't annex Tel Aviv, would you? The same applies to Bethlehem.

ON SINAI AND GOLAN. Within Sinai we can find a line of peace in the context of a peace treaty. The same principle would apply to the Golan Heights. But Judea and Samaria cannot be given up in any part, not only because they belong to us, but because it would destroy our security and in my opinion destroy the chance for peace.

ON RELATIONS WITH THE U.S. I value relations with America very much, provided they are mutual and with reciprocity. I know we have basic differences with the U.S. about a settlement. I believe they can be resolved. If I meet President Carter, I will tell him about

Ithe situation]. He knows the Bible by heart. I also know some parts of the Bible. And he knows the land. Let him be the judge. I don't know whether I will convince him, but I will do my best. Don't forget the Rogers plan was presented to us in 1969. [Former Premier Golda] Meir said that "any Israeli government that would accept the plan would commit treason." If Carter says withdrawal to the 1967 borders with minor modifications [which he does], it is exactly the Rogers plan. But it is even worse. Rogers never mentioned a Palestinian homeland.

ON A U.S.-IMPOSED SOLUTION. I don't think President Carter will do it to Israel. He is not going to send Marines to coerce us. We are a sovereign state and to assume that President Carter, of all people, would withhold arms is the wildest fantasy. I'll tell you why. I heard Carter say to President Ford in the second [campaign] confrontation in California that "you almost drove Israel to her knees by that so-called reassessment of [Secretary of State] Kissinger's." A man who uses such sharp words of condemnation and claims that there must be morality between nations --that he of all people should try to bring Israel to her knees is inconceivable. If it happens, then we shall say, "Mr. President, we are going to stand on our feet. We are not going on our knees."

ON SOVIET EXPANSION. I believe that the U.S. does not want to see the Soviet Union expanding. Israel is the factor in the Middle East that prevents the Soviet Union from taking over completely. When we were along the Suez Canal, we ' helped the U.S. by having the canal closed for six years. Soviet ships taking arms to North Viet Nam had to go via the Cape of Good Hope, a delay of 16 days. Then in September 1970, Syria massed tanks on the Jordanian border and Washington moved the Sixth Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean. The U.S. asked us to make a move. We concentrated part of our troops against the Syrian tanks. The Syrians withdrew, and there was no war. I think we rendered a service to the U.S.

ON FORMING A GOVERNMENT. I would like a government of national security, meaning all the parties except the Communists. I would like the Labor Party in, but if [the party's leaders] refuse, then we shall say we regret it but it is their decision. We shall try to have a government in which the majority in the Knesset will express its confidence. We will not even try to form a minority government as Labor has now. We consider the Democratic Movement for Change to be a serious candidate for the coalition. But we would not accept a D.M.C. ultimatum that we hold new elections in two years to get electoral reform. I would like a national unity government because now is an exceptional situation for Israel, both externally and internally. It is a serious situation. 1977 might be the year of political negotiations.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.