 One of the most booming boom towns in the world is Jerusalem. Every way you look, something's going up. Under the pressure of immigration and economic expansion, this is true not only on the Israeli side but in what used to be Jordanian Jerusalem. On both sides, the boom is evidence that Israel is settling in further and is what the Israelis confidently expect to be a permanent part of the Middle East. It is not without significance that the logic part of the construction force working on the boom is Arab. That is true not only in the territories Israel has occupied since the Six-Day War in 1967 but in Israel itself. After a quarter of a century there is no peace between Israel and the Arab states but there is a ceasefire, fairly well observed, and there is here and there in the Arab world an inkling of greater acceptance of Israel's existence. Still there is also, of course, on the part of many Arabs, a persistent and even implacable opposition to Israel. The Israelis know that real peace may be a long way off and that there may be much trouble ahead. They would be foolish to think anything else. But this is a fairly stable and hopeful time for them and anyone who has made periodic visits to Israel notices that at once. The world has long since got used to the idea that a woman is in charge of Israel's affairs, Prime Minister Golda Meir. The fact is an Israeli and world scene without Mrs. Meir would take a lot more getting used to. Mrs. Meir has been Prime Minister since March 1969. Before that she had a variety of government posts and party posts. She was, among other things, Minister in Moscow and Foreign Minister. That is Prime Minister Golda Meir who will be speaking freely today. Mr. Meir, I wonder whether we might begin by speaking of Arab groups of the kind of hijacked Arab countries and killed Israeli athletes of Munich. What's that? That deal about the Palestinian homeland and how it has been deprived of it. Very legitimacy when we talk about an Arab Palestinian homeland. No, I think not at any rate. The homeland that is referred to is supposed to be Israel. I think it's worthwhile just to take a minute to back a little bit in history. For instance, before the First World War there were no independent Arab countries. This area, as is visual today, as a matter of fact, up to the Jordan was considered the southern part of Syria when after the war the Great Britain got the mandate over Palestine. Palestine was then between the entire area, between the Mediterranean and the Iraqi border. All of that was Palestine. There was one right commissioner. It was considered one country. The first partitioning of Palestine took place in 1922 when after the war Great Britain was so fit to personalize this area of the Middle East and get part of it to everyone at the Shed who were helpful in the war. They had to do something else if they had done it. So the partitioned Palestine loads the western part of the Jordan River. Palestine. The eastern part is called Transjordan. The second time Palestine was partitioned was in 1947 of course. But until 1922 all of that was one country, one Palestine. Of course in Transjordan over to Jordan today there are Bedouins, there are others. But you will not find one single country in this area. An Arab country that has various groups of Arab people. So to see that there is a Palestinian people as a part from those that are in Jordan especially this is not too true to fact, not too true to history. Now between 1948 and 1967 after the war of liberation the western bank was later annexed by Abdullah they were there. They were the majority in Jordan. They wanted to set up a state or to call that state Palestine. Of course they didn't have to ask our permission and they really had nothing to do with it. But when they say the Palestinian people want the right to their land. What they mean is to drive the Jews out of this area and take over in addition to the 19 or 20 independent Arab countries all that have been created between the first and the second world war create one more country instead of Israel. This is really what it's meant. What time is the significance of the act of terror? We see the act of pressure and propaganda of various kinds. Why then do these people behave as they do? They don't want us here. But to my side it isn't only they who are the people who because of the war of 1948 fled this area into Jordan, into Syria, other places and have never been resettled. There is no refugee and certainly I admit one has to admit it that as far as the humanitarian point of view there are groups of hundreds of thousands of people who have lived in camps for so many years under miserable conditions. Why haven't they been resettled? Jordan actually was not viable without these people. Jordan had a population of maybe about 300,000. Why weren't they not resettled? Some of them were. But generally why was there not a resettlement of refugees or the Arab refugees? Because not only the refugees but the Arab countries themselves felt that they should remain in their camps. They should not be resettled. It was one of the weapons against Israel. Military measures of economic forecast. And one of the methods was to keep the refugees in the camps feeding a hope that some days they'll march into the country and march us out. So they don't like us. They don't want us here. Our Arab neighbors, whom I saw, have not yet acquiesced to our resistance there for wars. And it's all one problem, really, that the Arabs in this area, in the immediate area, are not to catch a living piece of it. This is the area that appears in what you say that you accept that Palestinians or whatever you want to call them, Russian genes, have been made victims one way or another if they have a legitimate grievance. What can be done to meet their grievance? They have become victims through the fact that after the United Nations in 1947, we decided on the partitioning of Palestine and the West, out of the Jordan River, into a Jewish state and an Arab state. We accepted that the Arab countries did not. And there was war. Can't imagine that there ever was a war without refugees. The difference is, in this case, that the Arab people who fled the area that became Israel after war, were actually among their own people. We chose our plastic nation of refugees. We were refugees. We were among strangers. People who had different religions spoke a different language, a different culture, entirely different. These people are among their own people. It's the same language, the same religion, the same way of life. The fact that a line was drawn didn't make them any different. And thus, that they suffered, I accept. The question is, was that necessary? Because during that period, during these years, Israel has absorbed from the Arab countries a much larger number of Jews than the number of Arabs that left this area. Nobody speaks of the Iraqi and Jewish refugees in Israel or the Syrian Jewish refugees or the Moroccan Jewish refugees, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them. And anybody that knows the situation will agree that there was a greater clash between European Jews that came here or Israeli Jews who have been here for centuries, generations. And Jews that came from Yemen or Jews that came from, let's say, the Arab children of Morocco. The only thing that really made us one was religion. We're Jews. We're one the same nation, but no common language. Sometimes there's centuries apart in culture, and yet we absorb them. And we're one people. Is there anything, Mrs. Prime Minister, that Israel can do to remove this center of infection, really, the source of infection for the whole Middle East, these Arab refugees, unsatisfied, unhappy people, unsettled, really? Because going around, as I've been doing the last few days, one still sees refugee camps that go back to 1948. Is there anything that Israel can do? We have said immediately after the war, after the war of liberation, 1948-1949, that we are prepared to take compensation for anything that these people have left behind, whether it's land, whether it's orange groves, whether it's houses. We have allowed tens of thousands of them to come back, because families were separated during the fighting. And it's part of the family that remains here. Everything, no problem of security, we allow them to come back. Now, the United Nations had a committee to investigate what these people left behind. And we cooperated with them. It comes up large sums of money. Now, if there had been peace, this money, the owned from international aid and from various governments, there's no doubt this thing would have been forgotten. And they would have been re-established in agriculture and industry in any other way. It's said the United Nations gave these years for hundreds of millions of dollars into miserable camps. We found the camps not in the Gaza Strip. We found out that people should be kept in conditions of that kind. But it was done with this idea, the worst for better. If people must be miserable, they must live in conditions of that kind. They must not re-settle and have a home of their own as well. And so that there will be an instrument against this one. What about the terrorism, Mrs. Mayer? Israel takes a very firm line against terrorists, against hijackers. The country is doing not. The lives of others are involved, you say. Don't give in to hijackers. What is your reasoning, since innocent lives are at stake? Innocent lives are always at stake. The question is, can innocent Israeli life become a commodity that groups of men and women can just do with them whatever they like? Because when they take a plane, since the service takes in here the last incident, the one that looked like you were in Germany, nobody would say that it's a simple matter. Of course not. But look what happened. These men demand the release from prison of men who participated in the killing of our people in the Olympic village. They say and practice, but they say openly. We want them out. As soon as they land in Libya, they make a statement and now they start all over again. Of course lives are involved, but it means that people are set free. Everybody knows that what they intend to do is the first opportunity. It's a difficult problem. I don't say it's easy, but Israel cannot say, well, as long as it involves Israelis, it's all right. It is sometimes suggested that the terrorist organizations act out of a fear of a solution being arrived at between Israel and the Arab state. Is there a prospect of such a solution? A solution between us and the Arab state? I'm sure there is a question. When? Well, one must not, I think, look at the situation in the Middle East as though there are Arab countries that involve themselves in war with Israel, but it doesn't hurt them. It doesn't hurt their people. Their governments carry an immense war budget, but their countries develop and they have modern schooling and health services and so on. But for the Israel, it suffers. It's too bad about Israel, but it really doesn't matter. It doesn't affect so much the Arab country because that's a distorted picture because as long as our Arab neighbors aren't war with us, certainly they suffer at least as much as we do. As a matter of fact, we have managed great difficulties to defend ourselves and at the same time to develop a country which is more or less decent, more or less modern. It's not all that we wanted to happen or that could have happened if we didn't have to defend ourselves, but still we were 650,000 when the state was established there are 800,000 children in school today and we have compulsory free education from five and now from four to fifteen. There's not one single village in the country no matter where it is that has either reached a hospital or that there isn't a doctor in the area and there's industry, there's modern agriculture, there is culture, there's music, there's theater. I mean I say it isn't all that we want, we could have done much more when in a country like this we have a community of close to 50,000 young men and young women in institutions of higher learning all day without practically one single month I could say almost without one single day of peace. Now this isn't exactly what happened on the other side. So war in this area is something that is first of all true and true to the others. First, if it comes and when it comes is a very important situation for Israel you're not ashamed to say that we want peace but also for the other countries. So anybody that is interested in this area must not fall into a way of thinking well there ought to be peace because Israel needs peace. The entire area needs peace. And the tens of millions of people in neighboring Arab states they are the main sufferers. Are you suggesting then that it is because they are suffering that it is because these countries are less well off than Israel is in the particulars you've cited that there is some hope for peace but that will create the pressure for peace in Arab countries? Yes, I don't think that our Arab neighbors will present us with a present of peace. The real tragedy is that the leading of these tens of millions of people in the various Arab countries will not realize how essential it is for their people. I think they will have peace many years ago. Mr. Reher, can you offer any opinion, any theory about the intentions of King Hussein of Jordan at this point? Well, I think the positive development in this area, as far as I'm interested, that King Hussein, that comes to the conclusion, I think because he said so, that there must be a solution of peace between Jordan and Israel and I think he accepts that for all the neighboring countries. And even when shall I believe that another war is another catastrophe, maybe a greater catastrophe for the Arab people. I don't think he has come to this conclusion for Israel's sake. But he realizes what it has done to him and to his people and knows what is happening in Arab countries better than I do usually. Knows that from his close contact with them. Well, that's a very positive development. The next thing that King Hussein has to do is to realize that since the war was brought on Israel by his participation, as well as Egypt and Syria and so on, he cannot expect and must not expect that everything goes back exactly where it was before he entered the war and attacked Jerusalem again as his grandfather did in 1948 and attacked other countries. When it comes to both conclusions, then we're really on the way. How far, how close can he get to the situation and to the system before 1967? Well, that can only be done in negotiations. You know, it's the well-known fact that Israel has gone mad and we don't play games with ourselves. It doesn't that we don't have ideas. We haven't. But the best idea is, all other ideas are based on one idea that we want to use for that matter. And what we want to gain in these territories, is not the territorial annexation. What we want is change in territory to the extent that it's essential for us that you have borders that promise greater security than what we have. One gathers, Mrs. Prime Minister, that with Jordan it would not be a great problem, but that you would, for example, insist on holding the Golan Heights taken from Syria and that that might be a much more ticklish problem than the Jordan problem. I don't want to negotiate on a television for them. I don't know what to say between her saying that with Jordan there is no problem. Because I don't think there would be an annexation of power problems. I have to be on this side of the truth. There is Jerusalem. Not that Jordan had any claim in Jerusalem. It was never decided that Jerusalem or part of it should be Jordanian. What happened in 1948 was by the breaking of the terrible principle of the inner miscibility of conquest by force, we were weak in 1948. Gordon was much stronger. The Arab Legion was a good army at that time, led by British, trained by British. And they took part. I don't think you ought to get it back. I'm sure he won't, but he wants it back. But anyway, from his point of view, it's a problem. Then again, the Western Bank can't expect this to restore the boundaries where they were before so that we again have about 12 miles between the sea and the former borders. So are problems. There are not problems that cannot be solved. I think all problems between us and our neighbors can be solved. Why should the Golan Heights be such a serious problem for Syria? Unless they again want to be in a position where they can shell our villages in the valley. If they had no intention of that kind, if they hadn't done what they did for so many years, we wouldn't have been no problem. Now they want us to come down again. Come down from the hill to the valley so that they can fill up their guns. That's not the problem. One often hears that Arab leaders would find it very difficult to make peace with Israel if they could not themselves survive politically. Maybe survive at all if they did make peace. It's not to be particularly the case in Egypt, for example, and to name another one, Iraq. Could demand like presidents have not of Egypt survive if they made peace with Israel do you think? Is that something you have to think about? I think we all have to think about it. The question is, is that a primary responsibility for Israel? What happens in these countries? Of course, one of the sources of the tragedy is the regimes. They're not democratic regimes. They're a dictatorship. Each dictator, in order to keep himself above water, promises his people various things. One of the things that every dictator in this country promised, in this area, promised their people that Israel will be destroyed. Well, one thing I think they can't be blamed for is that they didn't try. That they did. They couldn't. They did not succeed. Maybe it's too much to expect from a dictator that he goes back to his people as a courage to tell them, well, I've tried. You know, I've tried. You can't do it. And since you people are paying the price for it, because of illiteracy and because of poverty and because of hunger and so on, we have to give it up. Live at peace with Israel and build ourselves. Now, if you go on promising the people that next month is going to happen, I objectively understand that it's difficult for him to do it. And maybe he's risking his being in power, maybe even his life. But I'm sorry, I don't know how we can help him. Listen, I hear the Russians withdrew from Egypt at the time of Egypt. Did that fact make settlement or make the prospect of peace? Did it improve the prospect of peace in the Middle East? Very many people thought so. We hope so. But actually, if you analyze the situation, we have never said that the Russians are driving Egypt to war again. I think for two reasons, to be fair to the Russians. I don't think it's a major point in their policies to destroy Israel. What they wanted to do is to buy themselves or to buy their entrance into the Middle East on the basis of feeding Nasser or any other Arab leader what he wants most. And in 1955, they found that what Nasser wants most is not tractors and not modern industrial planes and schools and so forth. What he wants most is the tanks and planes in order to destroy Israel. But they were prepared to give it to them, to give it to them and kept on giving them all the time. Now, when they left, we thought, well, if so, that became disappointing with the Russians, that Russia was not giving him enough material with which to destroy us. Maybe he'll make up his mind that all right, he's lost his friends too. He doesn't believe the Americans will help him destroy Israel. Maybe then he should turn around and make peace with them. But that hasn't happened. You see, in all this, there's one more point that has to be taken to consideration. It's not only because we're committed to democracy and can't envisage a different regime. But look, whether it's Israel, whether it's the United States, any other democratic country, a government that takes a decision which if it's convinced of is good for the people, it's not always popular. It goes to its parliament, presents to it, or whether the president says, it doesn't make any difference, but there's the body democratically elected that has to deal with it. But other states are a form of government, a British form of government. Who in the government decides something and we go to the parliament? What can happen? We lose the majority of parliament. But what? Because there are new elections. When there are new elections, either we are re-elected or another party gets into government. The state remains, if we lose, we'll think too bad. The others can do as well as we do. The other party will think they'll do better. But nobody is killed. There is no taking over by force, by force, or after before him. Or Assad in Syria or the other one in Iraq. They always have to take into account that if they make a decision which is not popular, which is again the education that they gave their people, if you lose your post, you'll not be president again. How will you not be president? You'll not be re-elected? You're general. Or lieutenants may come in any moment and at the point of a gun, send him out. Send him words to prison or a public place. A personal life is in danger. Being president is in danger. But he loves thinking, and he does. This is the tragic side of this kind of regime of people. They say they're not supposed to be very great people. It doesn't stop. It doesn't stop. They're afraid. They don't trust anybody around them, the dearest friends. But they're telling the dearest people. The first thing is telling people to change. And I don't know. How does he take his decisions like I do? We sat at cabinet meetings today, some nine o'clock, two three o'clock discussing things. We'll take votes. I don't know whether he has, gets his ministers together and asks their advice. I don't know whether he doesn't get up one morning. He says, well, now I'll do this. He doesn't. So this element which is supposed to be a question of a philosophical problem, what kind of regime of a social problem, really in a situation of this kind of the Middle East, it's a question of life and death to many, many people. Are the Russians coming back in now? Do you think the dot has decided to have them back? Look what the dots did, I imagine. When that bright morning, they decided to sell the Russians go home, I suppose what he thought was, now the Americans don't like the Russians. So, if I send the Russians home, the Americans will applaud me. And then they'll come running and say, well, now the Russians are gone. They're wonderful. Now you send the people we don't like away, not just sell us what you want. You want us to squeeze Israel? That's what they're going to decide to begin to do the fact in. Well, the Americans didn't do it. So he says, OK, as the Americans are now involved in the political campaign, and the two are so influential, of course, without them there's no president elected in the United States. So never mind the president, we're going to go to Western Europe. Here is the place where he gets in. And he sends his message just to Western Europe. What is that? And the Americans don't help him. Western Europe doesn't help him. So now he's going to scare the Americans a little bit again. He's going back to the Russians. He's going back to the Russians. Here's another phase of all this. I said, of course, with everything that I said before, the lack of college courage or whatever you wish to call it, of knowing that you're a sovereign state, a sovereign people, you have to carry the responsibility for your decisions and for your people. Don't expect somebody to do things for you. You're going to war. You're Egypt. Not for that. Those with NASA doesn't make any difference. Out of the blue in 1967, you sent your army across the canal into the Spaniard Night Desert, and NASA said, this is the day. Now we're going to do it. Fine, you try. Now, Israel immediately after the war says, okay, now let us sit down and negotiate a peace treaty. The answer was no, no, no. The Americans must squeeze Israel. They remembered 56, 57, the Americans, and the Russians will do it, and I'll sit back and threaten you. The Americans don't do it quick enough. I'll start a war of attrition. And if my left mind is not really destroyed, never mind. I'll tell my people, as NASA does other people, two-thirds of the bar left mind is destroyed. Not two-thirds. Nothing is destroyed. You see, the lack of courage to say to the people, face the truth. And then take responsibility. How did you, Americans, say, do it yourself? Don't expect anybody to say, what's the doubt in saying all the time? I'm not interested in what Israel thinks. I'm not satisfied when President Nixon will tell me that he will influence Israel. Nixon must squeeze Israel. Doesn't he? That Israel is not squeezable. Listen, Meir, is it implicit in what you've been saying that the United States and the countries of Western Europe, the homes, the dots appealed, applied after the Russians left, is it implicit in what you've been saying that they somehow missed the boat, and that there was something they could have done? No. No, not at all. First face, with all the failures in international life and international relations and so on, there is a certain basis of justice, of honesty, of decency. And when we say we're prepared to negotiate when we say we're even prepared to carry on indirect negotiations, what else is expected of us? What should be expected of us? Certainly the United States has adapted an attitude that we can't and should not be squeezed, that it's prepared to help that the parties should negotiate, and I think European countries are just the same. And now when, so that went back to Russia, and I'm not so sure whether he's so happy with what he's getting from his point of view, and I don't know if he will turn it out, but first he sends them up and he goes after them, and I don't say that, this means that again, in the near future there will be 20,000 Russians doing the Egypt. But what's the material that they sent? What do you call them? What's expected of us? This is where we have two points I'd like to ask you about in connection with the territories Israel occupied after the Six-Day War. One has to do with the establishment of Jewish settlement, Israeli settlement in those areas, and sometimes it is said that Israel is creating a Fed Act complete by settling in these areas, in some cases expelling Arab farmers to do so. In some cases, so it is said that many people out of their houses destroy in houses. Maybe we could just discuss first the question of settlement. What is it you are trying to do in the occupied? Exactly what we're doing. In part of the occupied territories, we're putting up settlements. We are not destroying out of houses to put up settlements. We're destroying out of houses in the miserable refugee camp in the Gaza Strip to widen the road, right, also for security. Because there were nests of terrorists, but also for the welfare of the people. They're covering up the storage, open canals that were there and setting up other houses for them. Putting in electricity, water and so on. Now, I know that people say that because we're putting up settlements now, we are still making it difficult for Arab neighbors to negotiate with us. But immediately after the war, we didn't have settlements, and we were prepared to negotiate immediately after the war. Now, we never denied that we will not go back to the 67 borders. We said we want changes, and certainly these settlements represent changes in the borders. But that doesn't mean that we're not prepared to sit down and negotiate on the contrary, we want to negotiate. And they're not... They're not... We come to a village, we drive the Arabs out, we destroy the houses and set up settlements. There's nothing farther from the truth. It may be that sometimes somebody has to be moved. A little bit. Not villages, not masses, sometimes an individual house. But then always with compensation and always with rebuilding them. No, we're not angels, but we're not that bad. Well, I'm not point, Mr. Mayor, I was reading with how the houses have been destroyed, which you deny or explain. I want to say this, since there have been houses destroyed in the Gaza Strip or very few are from the western bank, when these houses were nested, tell us. That's true, but it had nothing to do with their settlement. There's been no confiscation of land to give to Israeli farmers, for example. That has been written. It's land that was safe land. And if it belongs to individuals, people bought and paid for it. And if they didn't want to accept the money now at any rate, in fact, they're disposal and we're prepared at any moment for negotiations. Some of the land I gather is crown land belonging to... That's right. That's what we call safe land. I have also read that there have been deportations and there have been some indefinite detention without trial in the occupied areas. Terrorists. A terrorist who... Some who have been caught in actions have been put to trial. And others who belong to terrorist organizations and helped and participated and so on. The administrative... That's true. Less people do not know. I think you may be familiar with where I'm going. All the terror that we had in the area, not one single... I can't say not one single death sentence. One or two death sentences, one execution of one single... Nobody knows how to do that. You see, and I have several laws that get away with capital punishment. In our military courts, it's a lounge, it's a wall or a tweezer or something like that. So that once or twice, the military court decided the death sentence was always changed to life sentence because government decided in after 67 that the death sentence should not be required. But sometimes the judges themselves the case is so serious that despite that, they themselves decide on death sentence, but then it is always turned into life sentence. Mr. Mayor, I want to change the subject radically, I'm afraid. You were born in Kiev, moved to Princeton, went to the United States in 1906 to Milwaukee. And you have said... Let's talk about Milwaukee for a moment. Get to that later. You're known as the mayor who made Milwaukee famous because I think you were born across in the city of... But I think for the sake of safety I'll say both schlitz have... fear at any rate. But before we get to the Milwaukee part of it, you were born in Russia, you went to the United States in 1906 and you have said if there's any logical direction that your life has taken with the desire and determination to save Jewish children from experiences like those new meals in Zala's Russia. How much of what lives in your memory? Look, the Jewish people have a very long memory, collectively. And masters of individual Jews have a similar memory. In the United States, if there are still people of my generation and immigrants at that time, this will be a repetitious story. It won't be Kiev, then it will be... Wilmerland will be... Covenants will be... It doesn't matter where it will be, but it's the same story. The same story. The first memory of many, many Jews the first thing they remember like I is when my father and the upstairs neighbor were naming up the doors because the rumors would be another programming key. But this wasn't something that was so outlined as there were programs, there were programs happening. At that time it did not happen. But the horror of standing there and watching what our fathers were doing and knowing that it may happen that lives in the hearts of many people. Some people, despite that, took a different role. To me this is something that, as I said, consciously or not unconsciously has decided my way of life. Do you find yourself having anything in common then with the Russian Jews who are now coming to Ukraine? Definitely, but with all Jews. Why not with children from the Jewish children, for instance, who live in the ghetto in Syria today? And know what it means to live in a ghetto and under terror because they're Jewish. And what happened during the second year? It was under Hitler. I mean, it's the same thing. It's the question of sovereignty. I have two generations now of my own that were born here. This is one of the greatest, maybe the greatest thing in my person, the greatest thing in my personal life, meaning that I have a son and a daughter and five grandchildren to whom, what I tell them about my childhood is a story. They know that that modern Jewish history and ancient Jewish history, but as far as their personal life is concerned, they knew no fear of them. They were warriors. That's true. My granddaughter with the Army service now, my children were in all the wars, but no fear of a poker. No fear of having to hide away. I thought the Russian Jews were coming here now because that is the subject, obviously. That arises enormous interest. Finally, the Russian government, the Soviet government, responds to pressure from the outside. Undone. Undone. This is the only thing that really can't influence it. And look, with all that we have to say against Russian unbelief and we have a lot to say against this, that we're getting some immigration, something we didn't have several years ago. Now, Stalin didn't, he thought about Russia. Khrushchev was different. These people certainly are different and the situation in Russia is such. I must give questions to these people for one thing, even if it hurts me. They have a situation among their people in their country. They are desperately in need of health in the western world. They have the courage to go to the western world and ask for it and try to come to some arrangement where they can get it. There's no doubt pressure from the west, from the world that people should, I can't be treated that way. But what after, what would the Jews want in Russia? They want to go to Israel. They're not going out to attack Russia. They should be able to do it. Without misery, without being sent to prison, without being sent to Siberia. You have any idea how many of them want to come out? Nobody has any idea. And sometimes we hear from the Russians that very few others want to come out all the more reason that they really believe that it's only very few just to let them go. And if it proves that there are many, let them go. Every three countries like that do it. Because there's not so much goodwill that they let the people go. And I hope they still want to come to that conclusion. What is happening now, they are sending, allowing some people to go. Then they put ransom on people. Then some people they sent to Siberia. And if they'll gain goodwill, they'll destroy you. There's may be a lot of talk, maybe a lot of guesswork about the absorptive capacity of Israel. How many people you could actually have when those countries supported? How many people could actually support themselves? Is there a common figure of the Israeli government kind of in mind? You know that between the data that the mandate over Israel and the day of our independence, I think there were 20 odd royal commissions that came from so one royal commission once said you can't, the country is so overcrowded that you can't turn a cat swing a cat. We wanted to swing cats. We wanted to have people in the country. Then another royal commission said not one more drop of water in this country. And of course the supportive capacity that was inside and Dr. Weitzman once said, what is the capacity? Every Jew that comes to Palestine, in his suitcase there's absorptive capacity for a few more years. And here we are. The population is very, very close to Sweden and now we know that so much of our country is still uncomplicated and not settled. And things like developing instead of a track of terms of so many acres which were necessary for a family when we didn't have irrigation there were no modern methods of agriculture. Now that's the same plus to support food. And then industry and science and technology there's no limit really. We're not a people of 200 million but the numbers that we have we can take. Who ever came when you were in the United States where you lived for quite a while? But you thought of Spain, right? You thought you might be in America? Before I came here? Yes. I told you when I came here when I was eight I became a Zionist maybe a Zionist to be more correct in the first world war I didn't join the labor Zionist party until I decided that I was from Palestine. Somehow I couldn't understand the idea that I'm for a Jewish state but I'll live in Milwaukee so there weren't very many years and God knows it's not because the United States is not good to us not because I didn't appreciate all that it had to generate the difference between Taoism and the United States. But it's because of the Jewishness in me and because of this peculiar streak that if you believe something you should go and try to accomplish it. Although I lived in the United States until I was 23 since I was 21 but out of these years quite a few number of years I was involved in Zionism. We only have about two minutes left Mrs. Mayer and I do want to ask you to put more about the past. You arrived in Tel Aviv in July 1921 It wasn't hot. You became a teacher in the Kabut and also as I've read picked all of them as you reminded chickens and fair for children you were married by that time of course and over the years so I've read you have never done you have a very limited war growth you have very little leisure you regret anything because I must correct something which is more important than anything else I was not a teacher like you both and I built a grave and washed clothes I'm a realist and it may I suppose if I believed that if I go to a beauty parlor I would be beautiful but I knew that it won't help. I have to live with it I certainly never regret a thing in my life I I have more joy and satisfaction in my life than I'll ever be able to tell off the person in his own life sees the revolution of this kind sees the Jewish people or the people of refugees or the people that is either killed by some and taken by the rest of the people back in his own life there are many problems and many troubles and so on but still acting on it so not pitied anymore thank you very much this is my ear I just want to speak to you freely Edwin Newman, NBC News